Current Lynch syndrome tumor screening practices: a survey of genetic counselors

Creation of a Quality Payment Program Measure for Mismatch Repair or Microsatellite Instability Biomarker Testing Status in Colorectal, Endometrial, Gastroesophageal, or Small Bowel Carcinoma

CONTEXT.—

Quality measures that are supported by evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are preferred for assessing the quality of pathologists' practices. Careful testing of a measure ensures that scores obtained by that measure reflect the quality of a pathologist's practice.

OBJECTIVE.—

To specify a new quality measure and to demonstrate through testing that it is suitable for measuring pathologists' appropriate incorporation of information regarding microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or mismatch repair (MMR) status in pathology reports for colorectal, endometrial, gastroesophageal, and small bowel carcinoma.

DESIGN.—

The College of American Pathologists collaborated with the American Gastroenterological Association to specify and test the new measure. Face validity testing was used to investigate the validity of the measure. Feasibility testing was conducted to understand if data elements required by the measure specification were readily accessible. Signal-to-noise analysis was used to characterize the measure's reliability.

RESULTS.—

Guideline recommendations for MSI and/or MMR testing supported specifications for the measure. Face validity testing indicated that the measure could distinguish the quality of care provided. Data elements required by the measure specification were found to be accessible, which supported the measure's feasibility. Reliability testing showed that differences in measure score were attributable to real differences in performance rather than random variation in scoring.

CONCLUSIONS.—

The Mismatch Repair or Microsatellite Instability Biomarker Testing Status in Colorectal Carcinoma, Endometrial, Gastroesophageal, or Small Bowel Carcinoma measure was appropriately specified, and testing demonstrated that it is well suited for characterizing the quality of pathologists' communication of MMR and/or MSI status.

A simplified two-marker immunohistochemistry strategy for Lynch syndrome screening in endometrial cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

To examine the efficacy of MSH6 and PMS2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) as a screening method for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer patients.

METHODS

Through multidisciplinary discussions, an institutional MSH6 and PMS2 IHC-initiated cascade test (MSH6, PMS2 IHC→microsatellite instability [MSI] assay→germline mismatch repair [MMR] gene sequencing) was developed to screen for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer patients. Testing was performed on a consecutive cohort of 218 newly diagnosed endometrial cancer patients who underwent surgery at a tertiary hospital in the Republic of Korea between August 2018 and December 2020. The number of MMR deficiencies (MSH6 or PMS2 loss in IHC) and.

RESULTS

of subsequent tests (MSI assay and germline MMR gene sequencing) were examined.

RESULTS

MMR deficiency was detected in 52 of the 218 patients (24.0%). Among these 52 patients, 34 (65.0%) underwent MSI testing, of which 31 (91.0%) exhibited high MSI. Of the 31 patients with MSI-high status, 15 (48.0%) underwent germline MMR gene sequencing. Subsequently, Lynch syndrome was diagnosed in five patients (33.0%).

CONCLUSION

Lynch syndrome screening using MSH6 and PMS2 IHC-initiated cascade testing is a viable strategy in the management of endometrial cancer. A simplified strategy (MSH6 and PMS2 IHC→germline MMR gene sequencing) was proposed because most women with MMR deficiencies exhibited high MSI.

Stakeholders' views of integrating universal tumour screening and genetic testing for colorectal and endometrial cancer into routine oncology

Mainstream genetic testing in routine oncology care requires implementation research to inform intervention design. In Australia, funding is available for oncology health professionals (OHP) to organise genetic testing (GT) for eligible colorectal and endometrial cancer patients as part of their routine care. To assess the health system ability to incorporate this practice change, we conducted an implementation survey using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The online survey was available from April to September 2020 to OHP and genetic health professional (GHP). In total, 198 respondents attempted the survey, with 158 completed and 27 partial responses: 26% were GHP, 66% OHP and 8% pathologists. Of all responders, 50% were female, mainly practicing in public hospital settings (57%) in an urban location (80%) and with an 18-60 years plus age range. The majority of respondents saw the relative advantage of aligning GT to abnormal universal tumour screening (UTS) results, with 77% of GHP and 78% of OHP agreeing it would streamline care for patients. There was disagreement across healthcare professional groups about knowledge and self-efficacy, with 45% of GHP not viewing oncologists as 'feeling confident' to use genetic test results for treatment management decisions, while 62% of OHP felt confident in their ability. Both OHP and GHP's indicated embedding a genetic counsellor in oncology or having a genetics point of contact to support integrating of GT through UTS as favourable interventions. Implementation research findings allow for the design of targeted interventions and a model for GT integration into oncology.

From Genetics to Histomolecular Characterization: An Insight into Colorectal Carcinogenesis in Lynch Syndrome

Lynch syndrome is a hereditary cancer-predisposing syndrome caused by germline defects in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes such as MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2. Carriers of pathogenic mutations in these genes have an increased lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) and other malignancies. Despite intensive surveillance, Lynch patients typically develop CRC after 10 years of follow-up, regardless of the screening interval. Recently, three different molecular models of colorectal carcinogenesis were identified in Lynch patients based on when MMR deficiency is acquired. In the first pathway, adenoma formation occurs in an MMR-proficient background, and carcinogenesis is characterized by APC and/or KRAS mutation and IGF2, NEUROG1, CDK2A, and/or CRABP1 hypermethylation. In the second pathway, deficiency in the MMR pathway is an early event arising in macroscopically normal gut surface before adenoma formation. In the third pathway, which is associated with mutations in CTNNB1 and/or TP53, the adenoma step is skipped, with fast and invasive tumor growth occurring in an MMR-deficient context. Here, we describe the association between molecular and histological features in these three routes of colorectal carcinogenesis in Lynch patients. The findings summarized in this review may guide the use of individualized surveillance guidelines based on a patient’s carcinogenesis subtype.

Mismatch Repair Universal Screening of Endometrial Cancers (MUSE) in a Canadian Cohort

Background: Approximately 2–6% of endometrial cancers (ECs) are due to Lynch Syndrome (LS), a cancer predisposition syndrome caused by germline pathogenic variants (PVs) affecting the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) pathway. Increasingly, universal tissue-based screening of ECs has been proposed as an efficient and cost-effective way to identify families with LS, though few studies have been published on Canadian cohorts. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and overall performance of a universal immunohistochemistry (IHC) screening program for women with EC within a single Canadian university hospital centre. Methods and Results: From 1 October 2015 to 31 December 2017, all newly diagnosed ECs (n = 261) at our centre were screened for MMR protein deficiency by IHC. MMR deficiency was noted in 69 tumours (26.4%), among which 53 had somatic MLH1 promoter hypermethylation and were considered “screen-negative”. The remaining MMR-deficient cases (n = 16) were considered “screen-positive” and were referred for genetic counselling and testing. Germline PVs were identified in 12/16 (75%). One additional PV was identified in a screen-negative individual who was independently referred to the Genetics service. This corresponds to an overall LS frequency of 5.0% among unselected women with EC, and 6.4% among women diagnosed under age 70 years. Our algorithm detected MMR gene pathogenic variants in 4.6% and 6.2% of unselected individuals and individuals under age 70 years, respectively. Four germline PVs (30.8%) were identified in individuals who did not meet any traditional LS screening criteria. Conclusions: Universal IHC screening for women with EC is an effective and feasible method of identifying individuals with LS in a Canadian context.

Universal tumor screening for lynch syndrome: perspectives of patients regarding willingness and informed consent

Aim: Lynch Syndrome is associated with a significant risk of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) and other cancers. Universal tumor screening is a strategy to identify high-risk individuals by testing all CRC tumors for molecular features suggestive of Lynch Syndrome. Patient interest in screening and preferences for consent have been underexplored. Methods: A postal survey was administered to CRC patients in a Canadian province. Results: Most patients (81.4%) were willing to have tumors tested if universal tumor screening were available and were willing to discuss test results with family members and healthcare professionals. The majority (62.6%) preferred informed consent be obtained prior to screening. Conclusion: Patients were supportive of universal screening. They expected consent to be obtained, contrary to current practice across Canada and elsewhere.

Somatic mismatch repair testing in evaluation of Lynch syndrome: The gap between preferred and current practices

Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome primarily defined by increased risk for colorectal and uterine cancers. Individuals with germline pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes (MLH1, MSH2/EPCAM, MSH6, and PMS2) are diagnosed with LS and recommended high-risk screening protocols to increase prevention and early detection of LS-related cancers. Tumor testing can help identify those at high risk for LS, but sometimes creates uncertainty with discordant screening and germline results, or unexplained mismatch repair deficiency (UMMRD). Somatic testing for MMR genes may help resolve UMMRD, potentially clarifying LS status and modifying cancer surveillance. However, guidelines for such testing are currently limited. This survey of cancer genetic counselors (GCs) aimed to examine current versus preferred ordering practices and interpretation of somatic MMR testing results in LS evaluation. Two hundred eligible GCs practicing in the United States and Canada were recruited from the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Participants answered questions regarding ordering practices, barriers to somatic MMR testing, theoretical scenarios, and desire for further guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, while themes were identified from free-text responses. Most respondents did not include somatic MMR testing in the LS work-up, despite three-quarters reporting they were 'somewhat comfortable' or 'extremely comfortable' with interpreting these results. Approximately half of participants indicated interest in ordering concurrent somatic MMR and germline testing for each of the four theoretical scenarios. Over three-quarters of individuals reported barriers to ordering somatic MMR testing, with cost and coordinating tissue samples most commonly cited. The frequently reported laboratory- and insurance-related barriers may contribute to the gap between preferred and current ordering practices for somatic MMR testing. Nearly all respondents endorsed additional guidelines for this testing, which could reduce barriers and inform screening recommendations for patients with UMMRD and their family members.

Effective Identification of Lynch Syndrome in Gastroenterology Practice

Purpose of review:

Identification of Lynch syndrome is important from an individual patient and public health standpoint. As paradigms for Lynch syndrome diagnosis have shifted in recent years, this review will discuss rationale and limitations for current strategies as well as provide an overview of future directions in the field.

Recent findings:

In recent years, the use of clinical criteria and risk scores for identification of Lynch syndrome have been augmented by universal testing of all newly diagnosed colorectal cancers with molecular methods to screen for mismatch repair deficiency with high sensitivity and specificity. Studies of implementation and outcomes of universal testing in clinical practice have demonstrated significant heterogeneity that results in suboptimal uptake and contributes to disparities in diagnosis. Emerging technologies, such as next-generation sequencing, hold significant promise as a screening strategy for Lynch syndrome.

Summary:

Universal testing for Lynch syndrome is being performed with increasing frequency, although real-world outcomes have demonstrated room for improvement. Future directions in Lynch syndrome diagnosis will involve optimization of universal testing workflow and application of new genetics technologies.

Lynch Syndrome in Urologic Malignancies - What Does the Urologist Need to Know?

Lynch Syndrome (LS) entails a defective DNA mismatch repair system, which is the postreplicative proofreading and editing system, ensuring our genome's integrity. LS predisposes to several cancers, most commonly colorectal and endometrial cancers. LS occurs in approximately 1 in 250-1000 people. LS is associated with urological malignancies with upper tract urothelial carcinoma the most common, although still clinically underestimated. Other urologic malignancies possibly associated with LS include bladder, prostate, testis, and renal cell carcinoma. Ascertaining their true prevalence in LS is mandatory for their and their relatives' diagnosis and treatment. Awareness regarding identifying patients at risk for LS through assessment of personal and familial oncologic history is critical among urologists.

Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome: perspectives of Canadian pathologists and genetic counselors

Universal screening of all newly diagnosed colorectal cancer tumors can identify individuals at high risk for Lynch syndrome (LS), a hereditary cancer syndrome predisposing carriers to increased risk of colorectal, endometrial, and other cancers. To inform planning of a universal tumor screening program for LS in our jurisdiction, we undertook online surveys of Canadian pathologists and genetic counselors to describe existing tumor screening programs. Online surveys were hosted on SurveyMonkey between October 2016 and March 2017. Fifty-three pathologists and 66 genetic counselors completed surveys (total n = 119). While attitudes towards tumor screening were positive, considerable variability was observed in the existence of tumor screening, test ordering criteria, and practices. Most respondents indicated consent was not obtained for tumor screening nor were educational materials provided to patients; however, opting out of additional mutation testing in the event of a positive tumor screen was endorsed. Results add to the growing literature on providers' perspectives on population-based tumor screening programs and inform ways to offer these. Findings highlight the need to develop methods of patient education that allow meaningful opt-out decisions. The variability we observed also suggests the need for national standards and guidance on tumor screening for LS.

Decreasing Trends of Secondary Primary Colorectal Cancer among Women with Uterine Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis

The current study examined trends, characteristics, and outcomes of women with uterine cancer who had secondary colorectal cancer. This is a retrospective study utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program between 1973-2013. Among uterine cancer (n = 246,272) and colorectal cancer (n = 421,312) cohorts, women with both diagnoses were identified, and clinico-pathological factors and survival were extracted and analyzed. There were 6862 women with both cancer diagnoses, representing 2.8% of the uterine cancer cohort and 1.6% of the colorectal cancer cohort. Among 123,940 women with uterine cancer survivors, the number with postcedent colorectal cancer decreased from 5.3% to 0.7% between 1981-2008 (relative risk reduction 87.0% p < 0.001). Similarly, of 141,801 women with colorectal cancer survivors, the number with postcedent uterine cancer decreased from 1.7% to 0.5% between 1973-2008 (relative risk reduction 71.6%, p < 0.001). In the uterine cancer cohort, women with antecedent/synchronous colorectal cancer had more high-grade tumors and advanced-stage disease resulting in poorer survival, whereas those who had postcedent colorectal cancer had more low-grade tumors and early-stage disease resulting in superior survival compared to those without secondary colorectal cancer (all, p < 0.05). In conclusion, the development of postcedent colorectal cancer following uterine cancer has decreased in recent years in the United States.

Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome: Perceptions of Canadian pathologists and genetic counselors of barriers and facilitators

BACKGROUND

People at risk of developing hereditary cancers associated with Lynch Syndrome (LS) can be identified through universal screening of colorectal tumors. However, tumor screening practices are variable across Canada and few studies explore the perspectives of genetic counselors and pathologists about tumor screening. This study was conducted to better understand the barriers and facilitators of implementing universal tumor screening in health centers across Canada.

METHODS

An online survey about tumor screening programs was administered to genetic counselors and pathologists across Canada through communication channels of professional organizations. It was hosted on SurveyMonkey and accessible from October 2016 to March 2017.

RESULTS

Barriers to tumor screening included a lack of sustainable resources, including funding and genetic counselors. Respondents strongly identified the need for a coordinated, interdisciplinary approach to program planning with the "right people at the table." Respondents currently with a screening program provided advice such as carefully designing the program structure, developing patient and family follow-up protocols, and ensuring adequate resources (funding, staff, training for providers) were available prior to program initiation.

CONCLUSION

There is no national approach to universal tumor screening in Canada. However, future efforts can be informed by the experiences of those centers that have already created a universal tumor screening program for LS. These data suggest the need for an interdisciplinary approach, initial and sustained funding, and careful advanced planning of program structures and policies.

Mismatch repair deficiency assessment by immunohistochemistry: for Lynch syndrome screening and beyond

While mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency has been studied extensively, the assessment of MMR status in colorectal and other cancers remains highly relevant, particularly in light of recent data demonstrating that MMR deficiency is a strong predictor for treatment benefit with immune checkpoint inhibitors across multiple tumor types. In colorectal cancer, there is a growing consensus in support of routine MMR testing for Lynch syndrome screening, to inform prognosis and adjuvant chemotherapy use in early stage disease, and to predict response to immunotherapy in advanced disease. Here, we provide a review of the Ventana MMR Immunohistochemistry Panel, which was recently approved by the US FDA for use in Lynch syndrome screening.

Implementing universal Lynch syndrome screening (IMPULSS): protocol for a multi-site study to identify strategies to implement, adapt, and sustain genomic medicine programs in different organizational contexts

Background

Systematic screening of all colorectal tumors for Lynch Syndrome (LS) has been recommended since 2009. Currently, implementation of LS screening in healthcare systems remains variable, likely because LS screening involves the complex coordination of multiple departments and individuals across the healthcare system. Our specific aims are to (1) describe variation in LS screening implementation across multiple healthcare systems; (2) identify conditions associated with both practice variation and optimal implementation; (3) determine the relative effectiveness, efficiency, and costs of different LS screening protocols by healthcare system; and (4) develop and test in a real-world setting an organizational toolkit for LS screening program implementation and improvement. This toolkit will promote effective implementation of LS screening in various complex health systems.

Methods

This study includes eight healthcare systems with 22 clinical sites at varied stages of implementing LS screening programs. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we will conduct in-depth semi-structured interviews with patients and organizational stakeholders and perform economic evaluation of site-specific implementation costs. These processes will result in a comprehensive cross-case analysis of different organizational contexts. We will utilize qualitative data analysis and configurational comparative methodology to identify facilitators and barriers at the organizational level that are minimally sufficient and necessary for optimal LS screening implementation.

Discussion

The overarching goal of this project is to combine our data with theories and tools from implementation science to create an organizational toolkit to facilitate implementation of LS screening in various real-world settings. Our organizational toolkit will account for issues of complex coordination of care involving multiple stakeholders to enhance implementation, sustainability, and ongoing improvement of evidence-based LS screening programs. Successful implementation of such programs will ultimately reduce suffering of patients and their family members from preventable cancers, decrease waste in healthcare system costs, and inform strategies to facilitate the promise of precision medicine.

Trial registration

N/A

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3636-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Current mismatch repair deficiency tumor testing practices and capabilities: A survey of Australian pathology providers

AIM & METHODS

An electronic survey of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia accredited pathology services was conducted to assess Lynch syndrome tumor screening practices and to identify barriers and capabilities to screen newly diagnosed colorectal and endometrial tumors in Australia.

RESULTS

Australia lacks a national policy for universal mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) testing of incident colorectal and endometrial tumors cases. Routine Lynch syndrome tumor screening program for colorectal and/or endometrial tumors was applied by 95% (37/39) of laboratories. Tumor dMMR screening methods varied; MMR protein immunohistochemistry (IHC) alone was undertaken by 77% of 39 laboratories, 18% performed both IHC and microsatellite instability testing, 5% did not have the capacity to perform in-house testing. For colorectal tumors, 47% (17/36) reported following a universal approach without age limit, 30% (11/36) tested only "red flag" cases; 6% (3/36) on clinician request only. For endometrial tumors, 37% (12/33) reported clinician request generated testing, 27% (9/33) were screening only "red flag" cases, and 12% (4/33) carried out universal screening without an age criteria. BRAF V600E mutation testing of colorectal tumors demonstrating aberrant MLH1 protein expression by IHC was the most common secondary tumor test, with 53% of laboratories performing the test; 15% of laboratories also applied the BRAF V600E test to endometrial tumors with aberrant MLH1 expression despite no evidence for its utility. Tumor testing for MLH1 promoter methylation was performed by less than 15% laboratories.

CONCLUSION

Although use of tumor screening for evidence of dMMR is widely available, protocols for its use in Australia vary widely. This national survey provides a snapshot of the current availability and practice of tumor dMMR screening and identifies the need for a uniform national testing policy.

Using Somatic Mutations from Tumors to Classify Variants in Mismatch Repair Genes

Present guidelines for classification of constitutional variants do not incorporate inferences from mutations seen in tumors, even when these are associated with a specific molecular phenotype. When somatic mutations and constitutional mutations lead to the same molecular phenotype, as for the mismatch repair genes, information from somatic mutations may enable interpretation of previously unclassified variants. To test this idea, we first estimated likelihoods that somatic variants in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 drive microsatellite instability and characteristic IHC staining patterns by calculating likelihoods of high versus low normalized variant read fractions of 153 mutations known to be pathogenic versus those of 760 intronic passenger mutations from 174 paired tumor-normal samples. Mutations that explained the tumor mismatch repair phenotype had likelihood ratio for high variant read fraction of 1.56 (95% CI 1.42-1.71) at sites with no loss of heterozygosity and of 26.5 (95% CI 13.2-53.0) at sites with loss of heterozygosity. Next, we applied these ratios to 165 missense, synonymous, and splice variants observed in tumors, combining in a Bayesian analysis the likelihood ratio corresponding with the adjusted variant read fraction with pretest probabilities derived from published analyses and public databases. We suggest classifications for 86 of 165 variants: 7 benign, 31 likely benign, 22 likely pathogenic, and 26 pathogenic. These results illustrate that for mismatch repair genes, characterization of tumor mutations permits tumor mutation data to inform constitutional variant classification. We suggest modifications to incorporate molecular phenotype in future variant classification guidelines.

Patient and provider perspectives on adherence to and care coordination of lynch syndrome surveillance recommendations: findings from qualitative interviews

BACKGROUND

Patients with a genetic variant associated with Lynch syndrome (LS) are recommended to undergo frequent and repeated cancer surveillance activities to minimize cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Little is known about how patients and primary care providers (PCPs) track and manage these recommendations. We conducted a small exploratory study of patient and PCP experiences with recommended LS surveillance activities and communication with family members in an integrated health care system.

METHODS

We used in-depth interviews with patients and providers to understand how surveillance is coordinated and monitored following confirmation of LS. We recruited patients with a range of ages/gender, and providers with at least at least one patient with a molecular diagnosis of LS. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed by a trained qualitative methodologist.

RESULTS

Twenty-two interviews were completed with 12 patients and 10 providers. Most patients (10) had detailed knowledge of surveillance recommendations, but were less sure of time intervals. While all patients reported receiving initial education about their surveillance recommendations from a genetic counselor, seven did not follow-up with a genetic counselor in subsequent years. A third of patients described taking sole responsibility for managing their LS surveillance care. Lack of routine communication from the health system (e.g., prompts for surveillance activities), and provider engagement were surveillance barriers. PCPs were generally aware of LS, but had limited familiarity with surveillance recommendations. Most PCPs (7) viewed LS as rare and relied on patient and specialist expertise and support. Providers typically had 1 patient with LS in a panel of 1800 patients overall. Providers felt strongly that management of LS should be coordinated by a dedicated team of specialists. Most patients (92%) had at least one family member that sought LS testing, and common barriers for family members included lack of insurance, affordability, and fear of result.

CONCLUSION

The maximal benefits of screening for confirmation of LS will only be realized with adherence to recommended preventive care. Important factors to ensure patients receive recommended LS care include a comprehensive and coordinated monitoring program that includes reminder prompts, and increased PCP education of LS and associated surveillance recommendations.

Identifying Lynch Syndrome in Women Presenting With Endometrial Carcinoma Under the Age of 50 Years

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited disorder associated with genetic predisposition to endometrial, colorectal, ovarian, and other cancers. There is consensus for the necessity of assessment for LS in view of the established survival benefits for identified patients and affected family members. The debate regarding the best screening policy is far from being concluded.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate a realistic protocol for identifying LS families by assessing young women with a diagnosis of endometrial cancer (EC).

METHODS

Consecutive cases of women with a diagnosis of endometrioid EC younger than 50 years were recruited. A complete 3-generation pedigree was drawn and assessed against the Amsterdam II criteria. Tumor DNA microsatellite instability and immunohistochemistry testing for the expression of mismatch repair (MMR) proteins MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 was offered to all patients. MLH1 gene promoter methylation and EPCAM gene deletion testing were also offered where appropriate. Genetic counseling and MMR germline mutation tests were offered in women with abnormal results.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight women were invited, and 38 (65.5%), consented for LS assessment (95% confidence interval CI 53%-78%). A complete data set was obtained in 35 women (60.3%). Lynch syndrome according to clinical and/or molecular characteristics was diagnosed in 8 cases or 22.8% (95% CI 15%-48%). There was no significant difference at the age of women with a diagnosis of LS (median, 45 years; range, 37-48 years) compared with that of the non-LS ones (median, 45 years; range, 31-49 years). Three pathogenic MMR mutations were identified in the 8 cases with a diagnosis of LS, 37.5% (95% CI 5%-72%), estimating an 8.5% (95% CI 1%-19%) mutation prevalence in the study population.

CONCLUSIONS

All women with newly diagnosed EC should be assessed for inherited predisposition. Regional policies for assessment should be developed in accordance with available resources. Gynecologists are required to upgrade their skills in order to identify, assess, and counsel patients with suspected or established LS and appropriately refer to clinical genetics.

A Systematic Review on the Existing Screening Pathways for Lynch Syndrome Identification

Background

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common hereditary colon cancer syndrome, accounting for 3–5% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases, and it is associated with the development of other cancers. Early detection of individuals with LS is relevant, since they can take advantage of life-saving intensive care surveillance. The debate regarding the best screening policy, however, is far from being concluded. This prompted us to conduct a systematic review of the existing screening pathways for LS.

Methods

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and SCOPUS online databases for the existing screening pathways for LS. The eligibility criteria for inclusion in this review required that the studies evaluated a structured and permanent screening pathway for the identification of LS carriers. The effectiveness of the pathways was analyzed in terms of LS detection rate.

Results

We identified five eligible studies. All the LS screening pathways started from CRC cases, of which three followed a universal screening approach. Concerning the laboratory procedures, the pathways used immunohistochemistry and/or microsatellite instability testing. If the responses of the tests indicated a risk for LS, the genetic counseling, performed by a geneticist or a genetic counselor, was mandatory to undergo DNA genetic testing. The overall LS detection rate ranged from 0 to 5.2%.

Conclusion

This systematic review reported different existing pathways for the identification of LS patients. Although current clinical guidelines suggest to test all the CRC cases to identify LS cases, the actual implementation of pathways for LS identification has not been realized. Large-scale screening programs for LS have the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality for CRC, but coordinated efforts in educating all key stakeholders and addressing public needs are still required.

Identifying "ownership" through role descriptions to support implementing universal colorectal cancer tumor screening for Lynch syndrome

Purpose

Lynch Syndrome cases are under-identified, and universal colorectal cancer tumor screening for Lynch Syndrome (UTS) has been recommended. UTS implementation is challenging and few successful examples exist to date, and colorectal cancer patients and at-risk family members exhibit low uptake of genetic services. This study sought to identify the elements that could guide the choice of specialties to implement UTS through three main stages: initiating the screen, returning positive screen results, and providing follow-up.

Methods

To understand stakeholder views on the UTS process, twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians from six medical specialties crucial for implementing UTS. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis and additional thematic analysis across content categories.

Results

Several clinical specialties could fill necessary roles at each of the main stages of UTS implementation. Participants suggested owners based on attributes of specialty roles, clinical settings, and the routes patients take through the system.

Conclusion

UTS is considered possible in a range of healthcare settings, with tailoring. Health systems need to choose who best fills the role’s needs based on local resources and processes. These results offer implementation guidance based on role needs, not clinical specialty, in resolving the issue of UTS “ownership.”

Care delivery considerations for widespread and equitable implementation of inherited cancer predisposition testing

INTRODUCTION

DNA sequencing advances through next-generation sequencing (NGS) and several practice changing events, have led to shifting paradigms for inherited cancer predisposition testing. These changes necessitated a means by which to maximize health benefits without unnecessarily inflating healthcare costs and exacerbating health disparities. Areas covered: NGS-based tests encompass multi-gene panel tests, whole exome sequencing, and whole genome sequencing, all of which test for multiple genes simultaneously, compared to prior sequencing practices through which testing was performed sequentially for one or two genes. Taking an ecological approach, this article synthesizes the current literature to consider the broad impact of these advances from the individual patient-, interpersonal-, organizational-, community- and policy-levels. Furthermore, the authors describe how multi-level factors that impact genetic testing and follow-up care reveal great potential to widen existing health disparities if these issues are not addressed. Expert commentary: As we consider ways to maximize patient benefit from testing in a cost effective manner, it is important to consider perspectives from multiple levels. This information is needed to guide the development of interventions such that the promise of genomic testing may be realized by all populations, regardless of race, ethnicity and ability to pay.

Cost-effectiveness of routine screening for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer patients up to 70years of age

PURPOSE

To assess cost-effectiveness of routine screening for Lynch Syndrome (LS) in endometrial cancer (EC) patients ≤70years of age.

METHODS

Consecutive EC patients ≤70years of age were screened for LS by analysis of microsatellite instability, immunohistochemistry and MLH1 hypermethylation. Costs and health benefit in life years gained (LYG) included surveillance for LS carriers among EC patients and relatives. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing LS screening among EC patients ≤70years with ≤50years and the revised Bethesda guidelines.

RESULTS

Screening for LS in 179 EC patients identified 7 LS carriers; 1 was ≤50 and 6 were 51-70years. Per age category 18 and 9 relatives were identified as LS carrier. Screening resulted in 74,7 LYG (45,4 and 29,3 LYG per age category). The ICER for LS screening in EC patients ≤70 compared with ≤50years was €5,252/LYG. The revised Bethesda guidelines missed 4/7 (57%) LS carriers among EC patients. The ICER for LS screening in EC patients ≤70years of age compared with the revised Bethesda guidelines was €6,668/LYG. Both ICERs remained <€16,000/LYG in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Routine LS screening in EC patients ≤70years is a cost-effective strategy, allowing colorectal cancer prevention in EC patients and their relatives.

Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome: health-care providers' perspectives

PURPOSE

Population-based reflex testing of colorectal tumors can identify individuals with Lynch syndrome (LS), but there is debate regarding the type of patient discretion such a program warrants. We examined health-care providers' views and experiences to inform the design of a reflex-testing program and their perspectives regarding an opt-out option.

METHODS

We interviewed providers managing LS or colorectal cancer patients, including surgeons, genetic counselors, oncologists, primary-care physicians, and gastroenterologists. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically using constant comparison techniques.

RESULTS

Providers supported a reflex-testing program because of the current lack of coordinated immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing and underascertainment of LS patients as well as the opportunity to standardize the increasing use of genomic tests in practice. Most supported an opt-out after reflex testing because they felt that IHC is akin to other pathology tests, which are not optional. Some favored an opt-out before testing because of concern for patients experiencing distress, insurance discrimination, or a diagnostic odyssey that may be inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

Providers support a reflex-testing program to improve the identification and management of suspected LS patients. However, how to support meaningful information provision to enable an opt-out without jeopardizing testing uptake and the anticipated public health benefits remains a policy challenge.Genet Med advance online publication 06 October 2016.

Successful implementation of Lynch syndrome screening in a safety net institution

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC), and national guidelines recommend screening patients with CRC for LS. However, there is a paucity of data related to Lynch syndrome in the underserved population, in which unique issues of access, cultural beliefs regarding cancer, language barriers, immigration status, and financial restraints exist. We performed a descriptive, retrospective review of a selective LS screening protocol at an urban safety net hospital between 2009 and 2014 with the aim of describing the detected prevalence of LS as well as reporting the high quality and suboptimal screening rates. A total of 154 cases of CRC were identified over the 5-year period, of which 57 met selective LS screening criteria. Eleven patients had a positive screen, and three patients were diagnosed with LS, leading to an overall detected LS prevalence of 1.9 %. The rate of high quality screen was greater than 90 %, consistent with prior studies. Thus, we show that screening for LS in a safety net hospital can be successful in achieving high quality screening and provide an example for other public hospitals considering implementation of hereditary cancer screening.

Qualitative Comparative Analysis: A Hybrid Method for Identifying Factors Associated with Program Effectiveness

Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) was developed over 25 years ago to bridge the qualitative and quantitative research gap. Upon searching PubMed and the Journal of Mixed Methods Research, this review identified 30 original research studies that utilized QCA. Perceptions that QCA is complex and provides few relative advantages over other methods may be limiting QCA adoption. Thus, to overcome these perceptions, this article demonstrates how to perform QCA using data from fifteen institutions that implemented universal tumor screening (UTS) programs to identify patients at high risk for hereditary colorectal cancer. In this example, QCA revealed a combination of conditions unique to effective UTS programs. Results informed additional research and provided a model for improving patient follow-through after a positive screen.

Stakeholder perspectives on implementing a universal Lynch syndrome screening program: a qualitative study of early barriers and facilitators

PURPOSE

Evidence-based guidelines recommend that all newly diagnosed colon cancer be screened for Lynch syndrome (LS), but best practices for implementing universal tumor screening have not been extensively studied. We interviewed a range of stakeholders in an integrated health-care system to identify initial factors that might promote or hinder the successful implementation of a universal LS screening program.

METHODS

We conducted interviews with health-plan leaders, managers, and staff. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis began with a grounded approach and was also guided by the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM).

RESULTS

We completed 14 interviews with leaders/managers and staff representing involved clinical and health-plan departments. Although stakeholders supported the concept of universal screening, they identified several internal (organizational) and external (environment) factors that promote or hinder implementation. Facilitating factors included perceived benefits of screening for patients and organization, collaboration between departments, and availability of organizational resources. Barriers were also identified, including: lack of awareness of guidelines, lack of guideline clarity, staffing and program "ownership" concerns, and cost uncertainties. Analysis also revealed nine important infrastructure-type considerations for successful implementation.

CONCLUSION

We found that clinical, laboratory, and administrative departments supported universal tumor screening for LS. Requirements for successful implementation may include interdepartmental collaboration and communication, patient and provider/staff education, and significant infrastructure and resource support related to laboratory processing and systems for electronic ordering and tracking.

Selective Versus Universal Screening for Lynch Syndrome: A Six-Year Clinical Experience

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) and confers increased risk of other cancers. Identification of patients improves morbidity and mortality. Screening tumors for absent mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a recommended approach. Despite guidelines advocating universal screening, significant variation in clinical practice exists.

AIMS/METHODS

A retrospective study of two different IHC-based Lynch syndrome screening protocols at an urban, university hospital was performed. Outcomes from a "selective" screening strategy utilized from August 2007-July 2010 on CRC tumors from patients with high-risk features were compared with a "universal" strategy of screening all CRC tumors from July 2010-August 2013. Positively screened patients were referred for genetic counseling and offered germline testing.

RESULTS

A total of 392 patients with CRC were screened: 107 selectively and 285 universally. The prevalence of Lynch syndrome was 3.1 %, with no difference by strategy. There was a trend (p = 0.06) toward fewer universally screened patients agreeing to genetic counseling compared with those selectively screened. Selective criteria failed to identify one of eight cases of Lynch syndrome from the universal group, though the universal strategy screened 166 additional tumors to find this additional patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Selective screening for Lynch syndrome has similar outcomes as universal screening in terms of identifying Lynch syndrome, despite screening far fewer patients. In addition, fewer eligible patients in our study agreed to undergo genetic counseling and germline testing than in prior studies. These lower rates may better reflect uptake of these services in clinical practice.

The Genetics of Colorectal Cancer

The hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes comprise a heterogeneous group of conditions with varying cancer risks, gastrointestinal polyp types, nonmalignant findings, and inheritance patterns. Although each one is unique in its own right, these syndromes often have overlapping features, making diagnoses difficult in select cases. Obtaining accurate polyp history (histologic type, number, location, and age of onset), cancer history (location, type, and age of onset), and other nonmalignant features is imperative in determining the likely disease diagnosis and thereby the appropriate genetic tests for precise diagnosis in a timely fashion. This process often necessitates collaboration among surgical oncology team members and genetic counselors.

Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome: Assessment of the perspectives of patients with colorectal cancer regarding benefits and barriers

BACKGROUND

Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome, the most common form of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC), has been recommended among all patients newly diagnosed with CRC. However, there is limited literature regarding patient perspectives of tumor screening for Lynch syndrome among patients with CRC who are not selected for screening based on family history criteria.

METHODS

A total of 145 patients aged 39 to 87 years were administered surveys assessing perceived risk, patient perspectives, and potential benefits of and barriers to tumor screening for Lynch syndrome. Associations between patient‐specific and cancer‐specific factors and survey responses were analyzed.

RESULTS

The majority of participants perceived their risk of developing Lynch syndrome as being low, with 9 participants (6.2%) anticipating an abnormal screening result. However, most participants endorsed the potential benefits of screening for themselves and their families, with 84.8% endorsing ≥6 benefits and 50.3% endorsing all 8 benefits. Participants also endorsed few potential barriers to screening, with 89.4% endorsing ≤4 of 9 potential barriers. A common barrier was worry about the cost of additional testing and surveillance, which was endorsed by 54.5% of participants. The level of distress associated with tumor screening for Lynch syndrome, which was very low, was not associated with age or CRC stage.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current study indicate that patients with CRC overall have a positive attitude toward tumor screening for Lynch syndrome, endorse the benefits of screening, and experience low levels of distress. These findings provide insight into patient attitudes toward tumor screening for Lynch syndrome among unselected patients with CRC to inform educational approaches that assist in patient decision‐making and guide the successful implementation of screening programs. Cancer 2015;121:3281–3289. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

In the current study, perspectives among patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer are assessed regarding universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome. The majority of patients appear to have a positive attitude toward screening and endorse the benefits for themselves and their families, whereas potential barriers include concerns over the cost of additional genetic counseling and testing.

Systematic review of the predictive effect of MSI status in colorectal cancer patients undergoing 5FU-based chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

We systematically reviewed the evidence for the interaction of microsatellite instability status (MSI) and treatment with 5FU in colorectal cancer to determine how well MSI status predicts health outcomes in patients undergoing 5FU-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a search of four electronic databases through June 2013. We considered studies that included both colorectal cancer patients treated with 5FU-based chemotherapy and untreated patients with survival outcomes presented by MSI status.

RESULTS

We identified 16 studies for qualitative analysis (9,212 patients) with 14 studies eligible for meta-analysis. The microsatellite stable (MSS) group showed an effect of 5FU treatment on disease-free survival (HR of 0.62 [95% CI: 0.54, 0.71]) and overall survival (HR of 0.65 [95% CI: 0.54, 0.79]), indicating that MSS patients who received 5FU treatment had longer survival than MSS patients who were untreated. The effect of 5FU treatment was not statistically significant for microsatellite high (MSI-H) patients for disease-free survival (HR of 0.84 [95% CI: 0.53, 1.32]) or overall survival (HR 0.66 [95% CI: 0.43, 1.03]). However, the summarized point estimates of the effects of 5FU treatment for the MSS and MSI-H groups were not different at a statistically significant level.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses indicate that treatment with 5FU-based chemotherapy improves disease-free and overall survival in CRC patients, but that there is no difference in the effect of treatment based on MSI status. Therefore, the use of MSI status to guide treatment decisions about the use of 5FU treatment for CRC has no significant benefits for patients.

Applying public health screening criteria: how does universal newborn screening compare to universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome in adults with colorectal cancer?

Institutions have increasingly begun to adopt universal tumor screening (UTS) programs whereby tumors from all newly diagnosed patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are screened to identify who should be offered germline testing for Lynch syndrome (the most common cause of hereditary CRC). Given limited information about the impact of universal screening programs to detect hereditary disease in adults, we apply criteria used to evaluate public health screening programs and compare and contrast UTS with universal newborn screening (NBS) for the purpose of examining ethical implications and anticipating potential outcomes of UTS. Both UTS and a core set of NBS conditions clearly meet most of the Wilson and Jungner screening criteria. However, many state NBS panels include additional conditions that do not meet several of these criteria, and there is currently insufficient data to confirm that UTS meets some of these criteria. Comparing UTS and NBS with regard to newer screening criteria raises additional issues that require attention for both UTS and NBS. Comparisons also highlight the importance of evaluating the implementation of genomic tests to ensure or improve their effectiveness at reducing morbidity and mortality while minimizing potential harms.

Creation of a network to promote universal screening for Lynch syndrome: the LynchSyndrome Screening Network

The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group published an evidence-based recommendation stating that every newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) should undergo tumor screening for Lynch syndrome (LS). In 2011, leading cancer institutions and public health agencies created the Lynch Syndrome Screening Network (LSSN) in order to promote routine LS screening on all newly diagnosed CRCs and endometrial cancers (EC). The LSSN facilitates implementation of appropriate screening via shared resources, protocols and data through network collaboration. The LSSN website contains resources for institutions interested in initiating screening, including materials for program development, implementation and sustainability. The LSSN listserv gives providers access to experts in LS screening and implementation. The LSSN database will allow exploration of key gaps in implementation as a consortia-wide endeavor. To date, the LSSN's membership includes 85 institutions involved in the care of CRC patients and nine official partners such as national and state public health entities and other non-profit institutions. Nearly 80 % of the LSSN's members have already implemented routine or universal CRC and/or EC screening. LSSN serves to further the population health potential of universal LS screening through collaborative efforts and resources.

The genetic basis of Lynch syndrome and its implications for clinical practice and risk management

Lynch syndrome is the most common cause of hereditary colon cancer, and accounts for as much as 3% of all colon and endometrial cancers. The identification and management of individuals with Lynch syndrome have evolved over the past 20 years, yet the syndrome remains vastly underdiagnosed. It is important for clinicians to recognize individuals and families who are at risk in order to be able to manage them appropriately and reduce their morbidity and mortality from this condition. This review will touch on the history of Lynch syndrome, the current knowledge of genotype–phenotype correlations, the cancers associated with Lynch syndrome, and management of individuals who are gene carriers.

Lynch syndrome: an updated review

Lynch syndrome is one of the most common cancer susceptibility syndromes. Individuals with Lynch syndrome have a 50%-70% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer, 40%-60% risk of endometrial cancer, and increased risks of several other malignancies. It is caused by germline mutations in the DNA mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2. In a subset of patients, Lynch syndrome is caused by 3' end deletions of the EPCAM gene, which can lead to epigenetic silencing of the closely linked MSH2. Relying solely on age and family history based criteria inaccurately identifies eligibility for Lynch syndrome screening or testing in 25%-70% of cases. There has been a steady increase in Lynch syndrome tumor screening programs since 2000 and institutions are rapidly adopting a universal screening approach to identify the patients that would benefit from genetic counseling and germline testing. These include microsatellite instability testing and/or immunohistochemical testing to identify tumor mismatch repair deficiencies. However, universal screening is not standard across institutions. Furthermore, variation exists regarding the optimum method for tracking and disclosing results. In this review, we summarize traditional screening criteria for Lynch syndrome, and discuss universal screening methods. International guidelines are necessary to standardize Lynch syndrome high-risk clinics.

Hereditary risk evaluation for borderline ovarian tumors based on immunohistochemistry

Objectives

Borderline ovarian tumors (BOT) are premalignant lesions. Approximately 10% of all epithelial ovarian cancers are known to be hereditary with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) accounting for approximately 90% of cases; the remaining 10% are attributable to Lynch syndrome, also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). The aim of our study is to estimate this risk based on screening immunohistochemistry (IHC).

Methods

Thirty-four patients diagnosed with BOT were identified. Family history, clinical characteristics, and IHC data (breast cancer 1, early onset [BRCA1], breast cancer 2, early onset [BRCA2], mutS homolog 2 [MSH2], mutL homolog 1 [MLH1]) were collected for all cases from the patients' medical charts. Nuclear staining of the tumor was scored as negative and positive.

Results

Among 32 patients, 14 (44%) had serous type and 18 (56%) had mucinous type. The mean patient age was 44 years (range 19-86).The number of patients with weak IHC staining for MSH2 and BRCA2 was 1 (3%) and 6 (19%) respectively. The median follow up was 21.8 months.

Conclusion

According to the results, we discovered that 3% and 19% of patients with BOT had a risk of hereditary cancer based on IHC analysis respectively. This pilot study may help clinician to counsel effectively for confirmative tests.

Genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed endometrial cancer patients aimed at reducing morbidity or mortality from lynch syndrome in the index case or her relatives

Endometrial cancer is the first malignancy in 50% of women with Lynch syndrome, an autosomal dominant cancer-prone syndrome caused by germline mutations in genes encoding components of the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) pathway. These women (2-4% of all those with endometrial cancer) are at risk of metachronous colorectal cancer and other Lynch syndrome-associated cancers, and their first-degree relatives are at 50% risk of Lynch syndrome. Testing all women newly diagnosed with endometrial cancer for Lynch syndrome may have clinical utility for the index case and her relatives by alerting them to the benefits of surveillance and preventive options, primarily for colorectal cancer. The strategy involves offering germline DNA mutation testing to those whose tumour shows loss-of-function of MMR protein(s) when analysed for microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or by immunohistochemisty (IHC). In endometrial tumours from unselected patients, MSI and IHC have a sensitivity of 80-100% and specificity of 60-80% for detecting a mutation in an MMR gene, though the number of suitable studies for determining clinical validity is small. The clinical validity of strategies to exclude those with false-positive tumour test results due to somatic hypermethylation of the MLH1 gene promoter has not been determined. Options include direct methylation testing, and excluding those over the age of 60 who have no concerning family history or clinical features. The clinical utility of Lynch syndrome testing for the index case depends on her age and the MMR gene mutated: the net benefit is lower for those diagnosed at older ages and with less-penetrant MSH6 mutations. To date, women with these features are the majority of those diagnosed through screening unselected endometrial cancer patients but the number of studies is small. Similarly, clinical utility to relatives of the index case is higher if the family's mutation is in MLH1 or MSH2 than for MSH6 or PMS2. Gaps in current evidence include a need for large, prospective studies on unselected endometrial cancer patients, and for health-economic analysis based on appropriate assumptions.