MLH1-methylated endometrial cancer under 60 years of age as the "sentinel" cancer in female carriers of high-risk constitutional MLH1 epimutation

Insights into MLH1 Methylation in Endometrial Adenocarcinoma through Pyrosequencing Analysis: A Retrospective Observational Study

Background: In cancer care, the MLH1 gene is crucial for DNA mismatch repair (MMR), serving as a vital tumor suppressor. Evaluating MLH1 protein expression status, followed by analysis of MLH1 promoter methylation, has become a key diagnostic and prognostic approach. Our study investigates the complex link between MLH1 methylation and prognosis in endometrial adenocarcinoma (EA) patients. Methodology: MLH1 methylation status was accessed by a Pyrosequencing (PSQ) assay. Qualitative positivity for methylation was established if it exceeded the 11% cut-off; as well, a quantitative methylation analysis was conducted to establish correlations with clinicopathological data, relapse-free survival, and disease-free survival. Results: Our study revealed that 33.3% of patients without MLH1 methylation experienced relapses, surpassing the 23.3% in patients with methylation. Furthermore, 16.7% of patients without methylation succumbed to death, with a slightly higher rate of 17.6% in methylated patients. Qualitative comparisons highlighted that the mean methylation rate in patients experiencing relapse was 35.8%, whereas in those without relapse, it was 42.2%. This pattern persisted in disease-specific survival (DSS), where deceased patients exhibited a higher mean methylation level of 49.1% compared to living patients with 38.8%. Conclusions: Our findings emphasize the efficacy of PSQ for evaluating MLH1 methylation. While unmethylation appears to be associated with a higher relapse rate, the survival rate does not seem to be influenced by methylation. Quantitative percentages suggest that elevated MLH1 methylation is linked to relapse and mortality, though a study with a larger sample size would be essential for statistically significant results.

Unraveling noncoding DNA variants and epimutations: a paradigm shift in hereditary cancer research

Exhaustive efforts have been dedicated to uncovering genomic aberrations linked to cancer susceptibility. Noncoding sequence variants and epigenetic alterations significantly influence gene regulation and could contribute to cancer development. However, exploring noncoding regions in hereditary cancer susceptibility demands cutting-edge methodologies for functionally characterizing genomic discoveries. Additionally, comprehending the impact on cancer development of variants in noncoding DNA and the epigenome necessitates integrating diverse data through bioinformatic analyses. As novel technologies and analytical methods continue to advance, this realm of research is rapidly gaining traction. Within this mini-review, we delve into future research domains concerning aberrations in noncoding DNA regions, such as pseudoexons, promoter variants and cis-epimutations.

Male breast cancer: No evidence for mosaic BRCA1 promoter methylation involvement

Breast cancers (BC) are rare in men and are often caused by constitutional predisposing factors. In women, mosaic BRCA1 promoter methylations (MBPM) are frequent events, detected in 4-8% of healthy subjects. This constitutional epimutation increases risk of early-onset and triple-negative BC. However, the role of MBPM in male BC predisposition has never been assessed. We screened 40 blood samples from men affected by BC, and performed extensive tumour analysis on MBPM-positive patients. We detected two patients carrying MBPM. Surprisingly, tumour analysis revealed that neither of these two male BCs were caused by the constitutional BRCA1 epimutations carried by the patients.

Prenatal BRCA1 epimutations contribute significantly to triple-negative breast cancer development

BACKGROUND

Normal cell BRCA1 epimutations have been associated with increased risk of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, the fraction of TNBCs that may have BRCA1 epimutations as their underlying cause is unknown. Neither are the time of occurrence and the potential inheritance patterns of BRCA1 epimutations established.

METHODS

To address these questions, we analyzed BRCA1 methylation status in breast cancer tissue and matched white blood cells (WBC) from 408 patients with 411 primary breast cancers, including 66 TNBCs, applying a highly sensitive sequencing assay, allowing allele-resolved methylation assessment. Furthermore, to assess the time of origin and the characteristics of normal cell BRCA1 methylation, we analyzed umbilical cord blood of 1260 newborn girls and 200 newborn boys. Finally, we assessed BRCA1 methylation status among 575 mothers and 531 fathers of girls with (n = 102) and without (n = 473) BRCA1 methylation.

RESULTS

We found concordant tumor and mosaic WBC BRCA1 epimutations in 10 out of 66 patients with TNBC and in four out of six patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-low expression (< 10%) tumors (combined: 14 out of 72; 19.4%; 95% CI 11.1-30.5). In contrast, we found concordant WBC and tumor methylation in only three out of 220 patients with 221 ER ≥ 10% tumors and zero out of 114 patients with 116 HER2-positive tumors. Intraindividually, BRCA1 epimutations affected the same allele in normal and tumor cells. Assessing BRCA1 methylation in umbilical WBCs from girls, we found mosaic, predominantly monoallelic BRCA1 epimutations, with qualitative features similar to those in adults, in 113/1260 (9.0%) of individuals, but no correlation to BRCA1 methylation status either in mothers or fathers. A significantly lower fraction of newborn boys carried BRCA1 methylation (9/200; 4.5%) as compared to girls (p = 0.038). Similarly, WBC BRCA1 methylation was found less common among fathers (16/531; 3.0%), as compared to mothers (46/575; 8.0%; p = 0.0003).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest prenatal BRCA1 epimutations might be the underlying cause of around 20% of TNBC and low-ER expression breast cancers. Such constitutional mosaic BRCA1 methylation likely arise through gender-related mechanisms in utero, independent of Mendelian inheritance.

MLH1 Methylation Testing as an Integral Component of Universal Endometrial Cancer Screening-A Critical Appraisal

MLH1/PMS2 loss due to MLH1 promoter hypermethylation (MLH1-PHM) is the most common cause of mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency in endometrial cancer (EC). This study aimed to determine the proportion of MLH1-deficient EC with PHM, assess the impact of the reflex MLH1-PHM testing strategy, and evaluate the associated costs within the publicly funded Canadian healthcare system. In a cohort of 2504 EC samples, 534 (21.4%) exhibited dual MLH1/PMS2 loss, prompting MLH1-PHM testing. Among 418 cases with available testing results, 404 (96.7%) were MLH1-hypermethylated, while 14 (3.3%) were non-methylated. The incidence of MLH1 non-methylated cases in our cohort was 14/2504 (0.56%) of all ECs, underscoring the prevalence of hypermethylation-driven MLH1/PMS2 loss in ECs universally screened for MMR deficiency. Reflex MLH1-PHM testing incurs substantial costs and resource utilization. Assay cost is CAD 231.90 per case, amounting to CAD 123,834.60 for 534 cases, with 30 tests needed per additional candidate for MLH1 germline analysis (CAD 6957.00 per candidate). This raises a provocative question: can we assume that the majority of the MLH1-deficient ECs are due to PHM and forgo further testing in healthcare systems with finite resources? It is imperative to assess resource utilization efficiency and explore optimized approaches that encompass clinical correlation, family history and judicious utilization of methylation testing to ensure it is provided only to those who stand to benefit from it.