One size may not fit all: the debate of universal tumor testing for Lynch syndrome

Modern day screening for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer: the KEM experience

PURPOSE

Current guidelines for Lynch syndrome detection in endometrial cancer (EC) patients rely either on risk evaluation, based on personal/family history, or detection of mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency on tumor tissue. We present a combined screening algorithm for Lynch syndrome.

METHODS

In this study, 213 consecutive patients treated for EC at Kliniken Essen-Mitte between 2014 and 2018 were included. Personal/family history was evaluated by the Amsterdam II, revised Bethesda/German-DKG criteria and prediction model PREMM₅. MMR testing was performed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based microsatellite analysis on tumor tissue. MLH1 promoter methylation analysis was performed in case of MLH1 loss or microsatellite instability.

RESULTS

Based on personal/family history 2/213 (Amsterdam II), 31/213 (revised Bethesda/German-DKG) and 149/213 (PREMM₅) patients were identified as at risk for Lynch syndrome. MMR analysis was performed by IHC in 51.2%, by PCR in 32.4%, and in 16.4% of patients both methods were used. MMR deficiency was detected in 20.6% (44/213). Methylation analysis was performed in 27 patients of whom, 22 (81.4%) showed MLH1 promoter hypermethylation. Only 9% of MMR deficient patients were identified as at risk for Lynch syndrome by the revised Bethesda/German-DKG criteria. A pathogenic germline mutation was discovered in 3 out of 20 patients that underwent genetic testing. None of these patients were younger than 50 years or had a family history of Lynch syndrome-associated malignancies.

CONCLUSION

General MMR assessment is a feasible strategy to improve the detection of Lynch Syndrome in patients with EC.

Developing Pathology Measures for the Quality Payment Program-Part I: A Quest for Meaningful Measures

CONTEXT.—

Quality measures assess health care processes, outcomes, and patient perceptions associated with high-quality health care, which is commonly defined as care that is effective, safe, efficient, patient centered, equitable, and timely. Such measures are now being used in order to incentivize provision of high-quality health care.

OBJECTIVE.—

To meet the goals of the Quality Payment Program, quality measures will be developed from clinical practice guidelines and relevant, peer-reviewed research identifying evidence that the measure addresses 3 areas: a high-priority aspect of health care or a specific national health goal or priority; a meaningful focus, such as leading to a desired health outcome; and a gap or variation in care.

DESIGN.—

Within the College of American Pathologists (CAP), the Measures and Performance Assessment Subcommittee is tasked with developing useful performance measures. Participating practitioners can then select measures that are meaningful to their respective patients and practices, and reflect the quality of the services they provide.

RESULTS.—

The CAP developed 23 quality measures for reporting to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that reflect rigorous clinical evidence and address areas in need of performance improvement.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Because the implications of reporting on these pathology-specific metrics are significant, these measures and the process by which they were designed are presented here in peer-reviewed fashion. The measures described in this article (part 1) represent recent efforts by the CAP to develop meaningful measures that reflect rigorous clinical evidence and highlight areas with opportunities for performance improvement.

An Analysis of Clinical, Surgical, Pathological and Molecular Characteristics of Endometrial Cancer According to Mismatch Repair Status. A Multidisciplinary Approach

Since 2016, our hospital has applied tumor testing with immunohistochemistry (IHC) in endometrial cancer in order to detect mutations of mismatch repair genes (MMR). All cases with MMR deficiency proteins expression are sent for genetic testing, except those with MLH1 protein deficiency, in which case genetic testing is performed if negative for promoter hypermethylation. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the ability of our algorithm to identify Lynch syndrome (LS). The Secondary aims were to investigate the relationship between MMR status and clinicopathological features and prognosis of primary endometrial cancer (EC). From January 2016 to December 2018, 239 patients with EC were retrospectively analyzed and subdivided according to MMR status. Patients were divided in three groups: MMR proficient, LS and Lynch-like cancer (LLC). LS was characterized by a lower age and BMI, more use of contraceptive and less use of hormonal replacement therapy, nulliparity and a trend versus a better prognosis. LLC appeared more related to MMR proficient than LS and exhibited a more aggressive behavior. Our multidisciplinary approach permitted a correct diagnosis of germline mutation in patients with newly diagnosis EC and it confirmed clinicopathologic and prognostic characteristics of LS.

Molecular Genetics of Endometrial Carcinoma

Endometrial cancer is the most commonly diagnosed gynecologic malignancy in the United States. Endometrioid endometrial carcinomas constitute approximately 85% of newly diagnosed cases; serous carcinomas represent approximately 3-10% of diagnoses; clear cell carcinoma accounts for <5% of diagnoses; and uterine carcinosarcomas are rare, biphasic tumors. Longstanding molecular observations implicate PTEN inactivation as a major driver of endometrioid carcinomas; TP53 inactivation as a major driver of most serous carcinomas, some high-grade endometrioid carcinomas, and many uterine carcinosarcomas; and inactivation of either gene as drivers of some clear cell carcinomas. In the past decade, targeted gene and exome sequencing have uncovered additional pathogenic aberrations in each histotype. Moreover, an integrated genomic analysis by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) resulted in the molecular classification of endometrioid and serous carcinomas into four distinct subgroups, POLE (ultramutated), microsatellite instability (hypermutated), copy number low (endometrioid), and copy number high (serous-like). In this review, we provide an overview of the major molecular features of the aforementioned histopathological subtypes and TCGA subgroups and discuss potential prognostic and therapeutic implications for endometrial carcinoma.

The practice of universal screening for Lynch syndrome in newly diagnosed endometrial carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome (LS) accounts for 5% of all endometrial cancer (EC) cases and 4% of all lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer. While current guidelines recommend LS screening for all patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer, there is no such guideline for screening patients with EC.

DISCUSSION

This review addresses LS screening and discusses algorithms for testing patients in the setting of newly diagnosed EC.

CONCLUSION

The successful diagnosis of LS has important implications, including prevention of LS-associated cancers among relatives and immunotherapy recommendations for patients with advanced EC and loss of expression of mismatch repair immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability positive following failure of traditional treatment.

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.

Universal screening for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancers: frequency of germline mutations and identification of patients with Lynch-like syndrome

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited clinical syndrome characterized by a high risk of colorectal, endometrial (lifetime risk of up to 60%), ovarian, and urinary tract cancers. The diagnosis is confirmed by identification of germline mutations in the DNA mismatch repair genes MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, MSH6, or EPCAM. In 2015, our institution implemented universal screening of endometrial cancer (EC) hysterectomy specimens by mismatch repair immunohistochemistry (IHC) with reflex MLH1 promoter hypermethylation analysis for tumors with loss of MLH1/PMS2 expression. Patients with tumors negative for MLH1 methylation and those with a loss of the heterodimer pair MSH2 and MSH6, or isolated loss of either PMS2 or MSH6 were referred to the Familial Cancer Program for genetic counseling and consideration of germline testing. Between May 2015 to Dec 2016, 233 EC patients were screened by IHC for LS with a median age of 63 years. Sixty tumors (27%) had abnormal IHC staining results. Fifty-one (22%) harbored heterodimeric loss of MLH1 and PMS2, 49 of which showed MLH1 promoter methylation (1 failure, 1 negative). One showed loss of MLH1/PMS2 and MSH6, 2 showed loss of MSH2/MSH6, and 6 had isolated loss of MSH6 only. Ten patients underwent genetic counseling, and germline testing was performed in 8; LS was confirmed in 5 patients (2.1%). In addition, 3 patients with negative germline testing and presumed Lynch-like syndrome were identified and offered additional somatic testing. Universal screening for LS in EC patients has yielded positive results for identification of patients at risk for this inherited syndrome.

Molecular Pathology: Predictive, Prognostic, and Diagnostic Markers in Uterine Tumors

This article focuses on the diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive molecular biomarkers in uterine malignancies, in the context of morphologic diagnoses. The histologic classification of endometrial carcinomas is reviewed first, followed by the description and molecular classification of endometrial epithelial malignancies in the context of histologic classification. Taken together, the molecular and histologic classifications help clinicians to approach troublesome areas encountered in clinical practice and evaluate the utility of molecular alterations in the diagnosis and subclassification of endometrial carcinomas. Putative prognostic markers are reviewed. The use of molecular alterations and surrogate immunohistochemistry as prognostic and predictive markers is also discussed.

Clinicopathologic Significance of Mismatch Repair Defects in Endometrial Cancer: An NRG Oncology/Gynecologic Oncology Group Study

PURPOSE

The clinicopathologic significance of mismatch repair (MMR) defects in endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC) has not been definitively established. We undertook tumor typing to classify MMR defects to determine if MMR status is prognostic or predictive.

METHODS

Primary EECs from NRG/GOG0210 patients were assessed for microsatellite instability (MSI), MLH1 methylation, and MMR protein expression. Each tumor was assigned to one of four MMR classes: normal, epigenetic defect, probable mutation (MMR defect not attributable to MLH1 methylation), or MSI-low. The relationships between MMR classes and clinicopathologic variables were assessed using contingency table tests and Cox proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

A total of 1,024 tumors were assigned to MMR classes. Epigenetic and probable mutations in MMR were significantly associated with higher grade and more frequent lymphovascular space invasion. Epigenetic defects were more common in patients with higher International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage. Overall, there were no differences in outcomes. Progression-free survival was, however, worse for women whose tumors had epigenetic MMR defects compared with the MMR normal group (hazard ratio, 1.37; P < .05; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.86). An exploratory analysis of interaction between MMR status and adjuvant therapy showed a trend toward improved progression-free survival for probable MMR mutation cases.

CONCLUSION

MMR defects in EECs are associated with a number of well-established poor prognostic indicators. Women with tumors that had MMR defects were likely to have higher-grade cancers and more frequent lymphovascular space invasion. Surprisingly, outcomes in these patients were similar to patients with MMR normal tumors, suggesting that MMR defects may counteract the effects of negative prognostic factors. Altered immune surveillance of MMR-deficient tumors, and other host/tumor interactions, is likely to determine outcomes for patients with MMR-deficient tumors.

Targeted Screening With Combined Age- and Morphology-Based Criteria Enriches Detection of Lynch Syndrome in Endometrial Cancer

Endometrial cancer is associated with Lynch syndrome in 2% to 6% of cases. Adequate screening may prevent of a second cancer and incident cancers in family members via risk-reducing strategies. The goal of the study was to evaluate the detection rate of Lynch syndrome via a targeted screening approach. In 2009, we incorporated targeted Lynch syndrome screening via immunohistochemistry for MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6, followed by MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, in select cases of endometrial carcinoma. Criteria for patient selection included (1) all patients <50 years; (2) patients of any age with tumors showing features of microsatellite instability (lower uterine segment-centered tumors, hard to classify carcinomas, increased peritumoral or tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and cases with synchronous ovarian carcinomas); (3) clinician's request based on family or personal history; and (4) ad hoc retrospective testing based on the established criteria on patients discovered on follow-up visits. By using a targeted screening approach in a 4.5-year period, approximately 2.1% of endometrial cancers (7 of 328) were potentially associated with Lynch syndrome. Therefore, targeted screening with combined age and morphology based criteria enriches detection of Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer. However, the detection rate is lower than the rates from published series that offer universal screening.

Combined Microsatellite Instability, MLH1 Methylation Analysis, and Immunohistochemistry for Lynch Syndrome Screening in Endometrial Cancers From GOG210: An NRG Oncology and Gynecologic Oncology Group Study

PURPOSE

The best screening practice for Lynch syndrome (LS) in endometrial cancer (EC) remains unknown. We sought to determine whether tumor microsatellite instability (MSI) typing along with immunohistochemistry (IHC) and MLH1 methylation analysis can help identify women with LS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

ECs from GOG210 patients were assessed for MSI, MLH1 methylation, and mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression. Each tumor was classified as having normal MMR, defective MMR associated with MLH1 methylation, or probable MMR mutation (ie, defective MMR but no methylation). Cancer family history and demographic and clinical features were compared for the three groups. Lynch mutation testing was performed for a subset of women.

RESULTS

Analysis of 1,002 ECs suggested possible MMR mutation in 11.8% of tumors. The number of patients with a family history suggestive of LS was highest among women whose tumors were classified as probable MMR mutation (P = .001). Lynch mutations were identified in 41% of patient cases classified as probable mutation (21 of 51 tested). One of the MSH6 Lynch mutations was identified in a patient whose tumor had intact MSH6 expression. Age at diagnosis was younger for mutation carriers than noncarriers (54.3 v 62.3 years; P < .01), with five carriers diagnosed at age > 60 years.

CONCLUSION

Combined MSI, methylation, and IHC analysis may prove useful in Lynch screening in EC. Twenty-four percent of mutation carriers presented with ECs at age > 60 years, and one carrier had an MSI-positive tumor with no IHC defect. Restricting Lynch testing to women diagnosed at age < 60 years or to women with IHC defects could result in missing a substantial fraction of genetic disease.