The results of gynecologic surveillance in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;133:526-530. [PMID: 24631699 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.03.012]

Gynaecological cancer surveillance for women with Lynch syndrome: systematic review and cost-effectiveness evaluation

Background

Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition which leads to an increased risk of colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer. Risk-reducing surgery is generally recommended to manage the risk of gynaecological cancer once childbearing is completed. The value of gynaecological colonoscopic surveillance as an interim measure or instead of risk-reducing surgery is uncertain. We aimed to determine whether gynaecological surveillance was effective and cost-effective in Lynch syndrome.

Methods

We conducted systematic reviews of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome, as well as a systematic review of health utility values relating to cancer and gynaecological risk reduction. Study identification included bibliographic database searching and citation chasing (searches updated 3 August 2021). Screening and assessment of eligibility for inclusion were conducted by independent researchers. Outcomes were prespecified and were informed by clinical experts and patient involvement. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted and results were synthesised narratively. We also developed a whole-disease economic model for Lynch syndrome using discrete event simulation methodology, including natural history components for colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer, and we used this model to conduct a cost-utility analysis of gynaecological risk management strategies, including surveillance, risk-reducing surgery and doing nothing.

Results

We found 30 studies in the review of clinical effectiveness, of which 20 were non-comparative (single-arm) studies. There were no high-quality studies providing precise outcome estimates at low risk of bias. There is some evidence that mortality rate is higher for surveillance than for risk-reducing surgery but mortality is also higher for no surveillance than for surveillance. Some asymptomatic cancers were detected through surveillance but some cancers were also missed. There was a wide range of pain experiences, including some individuals feeling no pain and some feeling severe pain. The use of pain relief (e.g. ibuprofen) was common, and some women underwent general anaesthetic for surveillance. Existing economic evaluations clearly found that risk-reducing surgery leads to the best lifetime health (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and is cost-effective, while surveillance is not cost-effective in comparison. Our economic evaluation found that a strategy of surveillance alone or offering surveillance and risk-reducing surgery was cost-effective, except for path_PMS2 Lynch syndrome. Offering only risk-reducing surgery was less effective than offering surveillance with or without surgery.

Limitations

Firm conclusions about clinical effectiveness could not be reached because of the lack of high-quality research. We did not assume that women would immediately take up risk-reducing surgery if offered, and it is possible that risk-reducing surgery would be more effective and cost-effective if it was taken up when offered.

Conclusions

There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against gynaecological cancer surveillance in Lynch syndrome on clinical grounds, but modelling suggests that surveillance could be cost-effective. Further research is needed but it must be rigorously designed and well reported to be of benefit.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020171098.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129713) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 41. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Screening and risk reducing surgery for endometrial or ovarian cancers in Lynch syndrome: a systematic review

Objective

Lynch syndrome is a hereditary cancer syndrome caused by mismatch repair gene mutations, and female carriers are at an increased risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer. The best approach to screening is not yet clear and practice varies across countries and centers. We aimed to provide evidence to inform the best approach to screening and risk reduction.

Methods

A systematic search of the literature was conducted (Medline, Embase, PubMed). Studies evaluating the following were included: women with Lynch syndrome (by mismatch repair mutation or Amsterdam II criteria), screening methods for endometrial and/or ovarian cancer, intervention included endometrial biopsy, transvaginal ultrasound, or serum cancer antigen 125 (CA-125), outcomes evaluated were number of cancers and/or endometrial hyperplasia.

Results

A total of 18 studies of Lynch syndrome carriers which screened for endometrial cancer using transvaginal ultrasound and/or hysteroscopy/endometrial biopsy revealed an incidence of 3.9% at the time of screening. Most (64.1%) endometrial cancers detected were from screening, with the balance detected in symptomatic women at the first screening visits, regular review, or between screening intervals. In mismatch repair carriers, the overall sensitivity of endometrial screening was 66.7%, and the number needed to screen ranged between 4 and 38 (median 7). The sensitivity of endometrial biopsy was 57.1% and the number needed to screen was 23–380 (median 78). The sensitivity of transvaginal ultrasound was 34.4% and the number needed to screen was 35–973 (median 170). Fourteen studies which screened for ovarian cancer using transvaginal ultrasound and/or CA-125 revealed an incidence of 1.3% at the time of screening and 42.9% of ovarian cancers were detected at asymptomatic screening. The sensitivity of ovarian screening was 54.6%, and the number needed to screen was 9–191 (median 23) in mismatch repair carriers. Thirteen studies reported 5.8% incident endometrial cancers and 0.5% ovarian cancers at time of risk reducing surgery.

Conclusions

There is limited evidence to support screening for endometrial and ovarian cancer in Lynch syndrome and data on mortality reduction are not available. Further prospective, randomized trials comparing targeted screening methods are needed. Risk reducing surgery remains the most reliable way to reduce endometrial and ovarian cancer risk in Lynch syndrome.

Testing strategies for Lynch syndrome in people with endometrial cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome is an inherited genetic condition that is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended that people with colorectal cancer are tested for Lynch syndrome. Routine testing for Lynch syndrome among people with endometrial cancer is not currently conducted.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence on the test accuracy of immunohistochemistry- and microsatellite instability-based strategies to detect Lynch syndrome among people who have endometrial cancer, and the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of testing for Lynch syndrome among people who have been diagnosed with endometrial cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were conducted in the following databases, from inception to August 2019 - MEDLINE ALL, EMBASE (both via Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (both via Wiley Online Library), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment Database (both via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (both via Web of Science), PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination), NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, EconPapers (Research Papers in Economics) and School of Health and Related Research Health Utilities Database. The references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews were also checked and experts on the team were consulted.

REVIEW METHODS

Eligible studies included people with endometrial cancer who were tested for Lynch syndrome using immunohistochemistry- and/or microsatellite instability-based testing [with or without mutL homologue 1 (MLH1) promoter hypermethylation testing], with Lynch syndrome diagnosis being established though germline testing of normal (non-tumour) tissue for constitutional mutations in mismatch repair. The risk of bias in studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool, the Consolidated Health Economic Reporting Standards and the Philips' checklist. Two reviewers independently conducted each stage of the review. A meta-analysis of test accuracy was not possible because of the number and heterogeneity of studies. A narrative summary of test accuracy results was provided, reporting test accuracy estimates and presenting forest plots. The economic model constituted a decision tree followed by Markov models for the impact of colorectal and endometrial surveillance, and aspirin prophylaxis with a lifetime time horizon.

RESULTS

The clinical effectiveness search identified 3308 studies; 38 studies of test accuracy were included. (No studies of clinical effectiveness of endometrial cancer surveillance met the inclusion criteria.) Four test accuracy studies compared microsatellite instability with immunohistochemistry. No clear difference in accuracy between immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability was observed. There was some evidence that specificity of immunohistochemistry could be improved with the addition of methylation testing. There was high concordance between immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability. The economic model indicated that all testing strategies, compared with no testing, were cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Immunohistochemistry with MLH1 promoter hypermethylation testing was the most cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £9420 per quality-adjusted life-year. The second most cost-effective strategy was immunohistochemistry testing alone, but incremental analysis produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio exceeding £130,000. Results were robust across all scenario analyses. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from £5690 to £20,740; only removing the benefits of colorectal cancer surveillance produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in excess of the £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. A sensitivity analysis identified the main cost drivers of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as percentage of relatives accepting counselling and prevalence of Lynch syndrome in the population. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, a 0.93 probability that immunohistochemistry with MLH1 promoter hypermethylation testing is cost-effective, compared with no testing.

LIMITATIONS

The systematic review excluded grey literature, studies written in non-English languages and studies for which the reference standard could not be established. Studies were included when Lynch syndrome was diagnosed by genetic confirmation of constitutional variants in the four mismatch repair genes (i.e. MLH1, mutS homologue 2, mutS homologue 6 and postmeiotic segregation increased 2). Variants of uncertain significance were reported as per the studies. There were limitations in the economic model around uncertainty in the model parameters and a lack of modelling of the potential harms of gynaecological surveillance and specific pathway modelling of genetic testing for somatic mismatch repair mutations.

CONCLUSION

The economic model suggests that testing women with endometrial cancer for Lynch syndrome is cost-effective, but that results should be treated with caution because of uncertain model inputs.

FUTURE WORK

Randomised controlled trials could provide evidence on the effect of earlier intervention on outcomes and the balance of benefits and harms of gynaecological cancer surveillance. Follow-up of negative cases through disease registers could be used to determine false negative cases.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019147185.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Gynecological Surveillance and Surgery Outcomes in Dutch Lynch Syndrome Carriers

Simple Summary

Female Lynch syndrome (LS) carriers have an increased risk to develop endometrial and ovarian cancer. In the Netherlands, carriers are therefore advised annual gynecological surveillance and eventually, risk-reducing surgery. Global gynecological LS surveillance guidelines are scarce and based on limited evidence. These are, however, warranted to offer accurate surveillance. To provide more insight into surveillance outcomes, this study assessed outcomes of gynecological surveillance and risk-reducing surgery in 164 LS carriers diagnosed in our center, with a median follow-up of 5.6 years per carrier. Although most surveillance visits happened within an advised timeframe, we observed large variability in how gynecological surveillance visits were performed. This finding stresses the need for development of clear and evidence-based guidelines. Endometrial cancers identified at surveillance were all found in early stage, mostly symptomatic, questioning surveillance benefit. Large, prospective studies should assess to what extent current LS surveillance programs contribute to early detection of gynecological tumors.

Abstract

Lynch syndrome (LS) is caused by pathogenic germline variants in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes, predisposing female carriers for endometrial cancer (EC) and ovarian cancer (OC). Since gynecological LS surveillance guidelines are based on little evidence, we assessed its outcomes. Data regarding gynecological tumors, surveillance, and (risk-reducing) surgery were collected from female LS carriers diagnosed in our center since 1993. Of 505 female carriers, 104 had a gynecological malignancy prior to genetic LS diagnosis. Of 264 carriers eligible for gynecological management, 164 carriers gave informed consent and had available surveillance data: 38 MLH1, 25 MSH2, 82 MSH6, and 19 PMS2 carriers (median follow-up 5.6 years). Surveillance intervals were within advised time in >80%. Transvaginal ultrasound, endometrial sampling, and CA125 measurements were performed in 76.8%, 35.9%, and 40.6%, respectively. Four symptomatic ECs, one symptomatic OC, and one asymptomatic EC were diagnosed. Endometrial hyperplasia was found in eight carriers, of whom three were symptomatic. Risk-reducing surgery was performed in 73 (45.5%) carriers (median age 51 years), revealing two asymptomatic ECs. All ECs were diagnosed in FIGO I. Gynecological management in LS carriers varied largely, stressing the need for uniform, evidence-based guidelines. Most ECs presented early and symptomatically, questioning the surveillance benefit in its current form.

The Manchester International Consensus Group recommendations for the management of gynecological cancers in Lynch syndrome

PURPOSE

There are no internationally agreed upon clinical guidelines as to which women with gynecological cancer would benefit from Lynch syndrome screening or how best to manage the risk of gynecological cancer in women with Lynch syndrome. The Manchester International Consensus Group was convened in April 2017 to address this unmet need. The aim of the Group was to develop clear and comprehensive clinical guidance regarding the management of the gynecological sequelae of Lynch syndrome based on existing evidence and expert opinion from medical professionals and patients.

METHODS

Stakeholders from Europe and North America worked together over a two-day workshop to achieve consensus on best practice.

RESULTS

Guidance was developed in four key areas: (1) whether women with gynecological cancer should be screened for Lynch syndrome and (2) how this should be done, (3) whether there was a role for gynecological surveillance in women at risk of Lynch syndrome, and (4) what preventive measures should be recommended for women with Lynch syndrome to reduce their risk of gynecological cancer.

CONCLUSION

This document provides comprehensive clinical guidance that can be referenced by both patients and clinicians so that women with Lynch syndrome can expect and receive appropriate standards of care.

Characteristics of Lynch syndrome associated ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

To describe clinical characteristics of Lynch syndrome associated ovarian cancer and the efficacy of surveillance in the early detection of these ovarian cancers.

METHODS

All Lynch syndrome associated ovarian cancer cases identified in either the Dutch Lynch syndrome registry (DLSR) between 1987 and 2016, and/or the cohort at the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG) between 1993 and 2016 were included. Clinical data on age at diagnosis, mutation type, histological type, FIGO stage, treatment, follow-up and gynecological surveillance were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 46/798 (6%) women in the DLSR and 7/80 (9%) in the UMCG cohort were identified as LS associated ovarian cancer patients. The median age at ovarian cancer diagnosis was 46.0 years (range 20-75 years). The most frequently reported histological type was endometrioid adenocarcinoma (40%; n = 21) and serous carcinoma (36%; n = 19). Most tumors (87%; n = 46) were detected at an early stage (FIGO I/II). Forty-one of 53 (77%) patients were diagnosed with ovarian cancer before LS was diagnosed. In the other 12/53 (23%) women, ovarian cancer developed after starting annual gynecological surveillance for LS; three ovarian cancers were screen-detected in asymptomatic women. Overall survival was 83%.

CONCLUSION

Ovarian cancer in women with LS has a wide age-range of onset, is usually diagnosed at an early stage with predominantly endometrioid type histology and a good overall survival. The early stage at diagnosis could not be attributed to annual gynecological surveillance.

[Lynch syndrome and endometrial cancer]

Lynch syndrome is a hereditary predisposition to many tumors, in the forefront of which endometrial cancer in women. It is related to the mutation of a mismatch repair gene, involved in DNA mismatch repair. This mutation leads to a loss of expression of the corresponding protein, and to genome instability in tumor cells. Cumulative risk at the age of 70 years is over 40 %. Endometrial cancers related to Lynch syndrome are most of the time sentinel (They reveal the predisposition in half of families.) and are characterized by young age at onset (before 60 years) and low body mass index compared with patients presenting sporadic tumors. Pathological tumor characteristics are debated but it seems to be two types of tumors according to age, older patients having standard tumors and younger ones more aggressive pattern. Endometrial cancers related to Lynch syndrome can be synchronous of ovarian cancer. Therapeutic management does not present any particularity. Conservative treatment can be considered more frequently due to young age of patients but has to respect usual guidelines. Prognosis of these tumors is controversial. Gynaecological screening, although its benefit has not been proved, appears crucial in this population, as well as prophylactic surgery, which remains the best prevention.

Screening and diagnosis of endometrial cancer in Lynch syndrome

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant inherited cancer predisposition syndrome caused by a mismatch of DNA repair (MMR system). Lifetime risk of developing endometrial and ovarian cancer in LS is higher than in the general population and gynecologic screening appears interesting. Screening is based on several tests: pelvic ultrasound, endometrial biopsy and hysteroscopy for endometrial cancer, pelvic ultrasound and CA125 for ovarian cancer. Those tests appear efficient for the diagnosis of gynecologic cancers in LS. Nevertheless, screening tests have not proved clinical benefit until now, and potential problems of compliance, risk of false negative cases, and interval cancer associated with screening do justify offering prophylactic surgery to patients. Women with LS should be informed of the potential benefits and risks of screening and the importance of evaluation in case of gynecologic symptoms or abnormal bleeding. Chemoprevention by progestin-containing oral contraceptives and the treatment of premalignant lesion are available options for reducing the risk of endometrial cancer in LS population.

Hereditary Syndromes Manifesting as Endometrial Carcinoma: How Can Pathological Features Aid Risk Assessment?

Endometrial carcinoma is the most common gynecological tumor worldwide. It can be the presenting malignancy, acting as the harbinger, of an undiagnosed hereditary syndrome. Up to 50% of females with Lynch syndrome present in this manner. Differentiation between Lynch, Muir-Torre, and Cowden syndromes can at times be challenging due to the overlapping features. Our review emphasizes on the strengths, pitfalls, and limitations of microscopic features as well as immunohistochemical and polymerase chain reaction- (PCR-) based tests used by laboratories to screen for DNA mismatch repair (MMR) and PTEN gene mutations in patients to enable a more targeted and cost effective approach in the use of confirmatory gene mutational analysis tests. This is crucial towards initiating timely and appropriate surveillance measures for the patient and affected family members. We also review the evidence postulating on the possible inclusion of uterine serous carcinoma as part of the spectrum of malignancies seen in hereditary breast and ovarian carcinoma syndrome, driven by mutations in BRCA1/2.

Milestones of Lynch syndrome: 1895-2015

Lynch syndrome, which is now recognized as the most common hereditary colorectal cancer condition, is characterized by the predisposition to a spectrum of cancers, primarily colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer. We chronicle over a century of discoveries that revolutionized the diagnosis and clinical management of Lynch syndrome, beginning in 1895 with Warthin's observations of familial cancer clusters, through the clinical era led by Lynch and the genetic era heralded by the discovery of causative mutations in mismatch repair (MMR) genes, to ongoing challenges.

[Environmental and genetic risk factors for endometrial carcinoma]

In France, endometrial cancer is at the first rank of gynecological cancers for cancer incidence, before ovarian and cervical cancers. In fact, the number of incident cases has been estimated to 7275 for the year 2012; the number of death due to endometrial cancer to 2025. This cancer is hormone-dependent and endogenous (reproductive factors) or exogenous (oral combined contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy) causes of exposition to estrogens are the major environmental risk factors for both types of endometrial cancers: type I or well-differentiated endometrioid adenocarcinomas; and type II including all other histological types: papillary serous adenocarcinomas, clear cell adenocarcinomas and carcinosarcomas, also known as malignant mixed Mullerian tumor, MMMT. Obesity, diabetes mellitus and adjuvant treatment of breast cancer with tamoxifen are also associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer. Genetic factors may also be implicated in the pathogenesis of endometrial cancer either as "minor genetic factors" (susceptibility factors), which remain largely unknown and are responsible for the increased observed risk in relatives of women affected with endometrial cancer; or as major genetic factors responsible for hereditary forms and namely for Lynch syndrome whose genetic transmission is of autosomic dominant type. The appropriate recognition of Lynch syndrome is of critical importance because affected patients and their relatives should benefit from specific care. The aims of this review is to describe major environmental and genetic risk factors for endometrial cancer with specific attention to most recent advances in this field and to describe recommendations for care of at-risk women.

Management of ovarian and endometrial cancers in women belonging to HNPCC carrier families: review of the literature and results of cancer risk assessment in Polish HNPCC families

BACKGROUND

Over half the cancer deaths in HNPCC families are due to extra-colonic malignancies that include endometrial and ovarian cancers. The benefits of surveillance for gynecological cancers are not yet proven and there is no consensus on the optimal surveillance recommendations for women with MMR mutations.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature and evaluated gynecological cancer risk in a series of 631 Polish HNPCC families classified into either Lynch Syndrome (LS, MMR mutations detected) or HNPCC (fulfillment of the Amsterdam or modified Amsterdam criteria).

RESULTS

Published data clearly indicates no benefit for ovarian cancer screening in contrast to risk reducing surgery. We confirmed a significantly increased risk of OC in Polish LS families (OR = 4,6, p < 0.001) and an especially high risk of OC was found for women under 50 years of age: OR = 32,6, p < 0.0001 (95% CI 12,96-81,87). The cumulative OC risk to 50 year of life was calculated to be 10%. Six out of 19 (32%) early-onset patients from LS families died from OC within 2 years of diagnosis. We confirmed a significantly increased risk of EC (OR = 26, 95% CI 11,36-58,8; p < 0,001). The cumulative risk for EC in Polish LS families was calculated to be 67%.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the increased risk of OC and absence of any benefit from gynecological screening reported in the literature it is recommended that prophylactic oophorectomy for female carriers of MMR mutations after 35 year of age should be considered as a risk reducing option. Annual transvaginal ultrasound supported by CA125 or HE4 marker testing should be performed after prophylactic surgery in these women. Due to the high risk of EC it is reasonable to offer, after the age of 35 years, annual clinical gynecologic examinations with transvaginal ultrasound supported by routine aspiration sampling of the endometrium for women from either LS or HNPCC families. An alternative option, which could be taken into consideration for women preferring surgical prevention, is risk reducing total hysterectomy (with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy) for carriers after childbearing is complete.

Lynch syndrome caused by germline PMS2 mutations: delineating the cancer risk

PURPOSE

The clinical consequences of PMS2 germline mutations are poorly understood compared with other Lynch-associated mismatch repair gene (MMR) mutations. The aim of this European cohort study was to define the cancer risk faced by PMS2 mutation carriers.

METHODS

Data were collected from 98 PMS2 families ascertained from family cancer clinics that included a total of 2,548 family members and 377 proven mutation carriers. To adjust for potential ascertainment bias, a modified segregation analysis model was used to calculate colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer (EC) risks. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated to estimate risks for other Lynch syndrome-associated cancers.

RESULTS

The cumulative risk (CR) of CRC for male mutation carriers by age 70 years was 19%. The CR among female carriers was 11% for CRC and 12% for EC. The mean age of CRC development was 52 years, and there was a significant difference in mean age of CRC between the probands (mean, 47 years; range, 26 to 68 years) and other family members with a PMS2 mutation (mean, 58 years; range, 31 to 86 years; P < .001). Significant SIRs were observed for cancers of the small bowel, ovaries, breast, and renal pelvis.

CONCLUSION

CRC and EC risks were found to be markedly lower than those previously reported for the other MMR. However, these risks embody the isolated risk of carrying a PMS2 mutation, and it should be noted that we observed a substantial variation in cancer phenotype within and between families, suggesting the influence of genetic modifiers and lifestyle factors on cancer risks.