Testing strategies to reduce morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome

Colon cancer: the 2023 Korean clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and treatment

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients' values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.

The prognostic significance of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer: a Swedish multi-center study

PURPOSE

About 10 to 15% of patients with sporadic colorectal cancer display mutations in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes shown as microsatellite instability (MSI). Previous reports of colorectal cancer (CRC) indicate a better prognosis for patients with MSI tumors compared to patients with microsatellite stable (MSS) tumors. In this study, our aim was to investigate whether MSI is an independent prognostic factor in CRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with stage I-III colorectal cancer and subject to curative surgery during 2002-2006 in the Swedish low-risk colorectal cancer study group cohort were eligible for inclusion. Deficient MMR (dMMR) status was analyzed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or by MSI testing with polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Prognostic follow-up and treatment data were retrieved from patient records. Statistical analyses to assess MSI-status and prognosis were done using logistic regression and survival analyses using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression hazards models adjusted for age, sex, stage, comorbidity, and tumor location.

RESULTS

In total, 463 patients were included, MSI high tumors were present in 66 patients (14%), and the remaining 397 were MSS/MSI low. Within 6 years, distant recurrences were present in 9.1% and 20.2% (P = 0.049), and death occurred in 25.8% and 31.5% in MSI and MSS patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in overall mortality (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46-1.38), relapse-free survival (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50-1.36), or cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.60, 95% CI 0.73-3.51).

CONCLUSION

Despite distant metastases being less common in patients with MSI, there was no association between MSI and overall, relapse-free, or cancer-specific survival.

Familial Risks and Proportions Describing Population Landscape of Familial Cancer

Simple Summary

Familial cancer can be defined through the occurrence of the same cancer in two or more family members. Hereditary cancer is a narrower definition of high-risk familial aggregation through identified predisposing genes. The absence of correlation between spouses for risk of most cancers, particularly those not related to tobacco smoking or solar exposure, suggests that familial cancers are mainly due to genetic causes. The aim of the present study was to define the frequency and increased risk for familial cancer. Data on 31 of the most common cancers were obtained from the Swedish Family-Cancer Database and familial relative risks (SIRs) were estimated between persons with or without family history of the same cancer in first-degree relatives. Practically all cancers showed a familial risk, with an SIR most commonly around two, or a doubling of the risk because of family history.

Abstract

Background: Familial cancer can be defined through the occurrence of the same cancer in two or more family members. We describe a nationwide landscape of familial cancer, including its frequency and the risk that it conveys, by using the largest family database in the world with complete family structures and medically confirmed cancers. Patients/methods: We employed standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) to estimate familial risks for concordant cancer among first-degree relatives using the Swedish Cancer Registry from years 1958 through 2016. Results: Cancer risks in a 20–84 year old population conferred by affected parents or siblings were about two-fold compared to the risk for individuals with unaffected relatives. For small intestinal, testicular, thyroid and bone cancers and Hodgkin disease, risks were higher, five-to-eight-fold. Novel familial associations included adult bone, lip, pharyngeal, and connective tissue cancers. Familial cancers were found in 13.2% of families with cancer; for prostate cancer, the proportion was 26.4%. High-risk families accounted for 6.6% of all cancer families. Discussion/Conclusion: High-risk family history should be exceedingly considered for management, including targeted genetic testing. For the major proportion of familial clustering, where genetic testing may not be feasible, medical and behavioral intervention should be indicated for the patient and their family members, including screening recommendations and avoidance of carcinogenic exposure.

The MLH1 polymorphism rs1800734 and risk of endometrial cancer with microsatellite instability

Both colorectal (CRC, 15%) and endometrial cancers (EC, 30%) exhibit microsatellite instability (MSI) due to MLH1 hypermethylation and silencing. The MLH1 promoter polymorphism, rs1800734 is associated with MSI CRC risk, increased methylation and reduced MLH1 expression. In EC samples, we investigated rs1800734 risk using MSI and MSS cases and controls. We found no evidence that rs1800734 or other MLH1 SNPs were associated with the risk of MSI EC. We found the rs1800734 risk allele had no effect on MLH1 methylation or expression in ECs. We propose that MLH1 hypermethylation occurs by different mechanisms in CRC and EC.

Evaluation of yield and experiences of age-related molecular investigation for heritable and nonheritable causes of mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer to identify Lynch syndrome

Universal mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) testing of colorectal cancer (CRC) is promoted as routine diagnostics to prescreen for Lynch syndrome. We evaluated the yield and experience of age-related molecular investigation for heritable and nonheritable causes of dMMR in CRC below age 70 to identify Lynch Syndrome. In a prospective cohort of 3602 newly diagnosed CRCs below age 70 from 19 hospitals, dMMR, MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, germline MMR gene and somatic MMR gene testing was assessed in daily practice. Yield was evaluated using data from the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) and two regional genetic centers. Experiences of clinicians were evaluated through questionnaires. Participating clinicians were overwhelmingly positive about the clinical workflow. Pathologists routinely applied dMMR-testing in 84% CRCs and determined 10% was dMMR, largely due to somatic MLH1 hypermethylation (66%). Of those, 69% with dMMR CRC below age 70 without hypermethylation were referred for genetic testing, of which 55% was due to Lynch syndrome (hereditary) and 43% to somatic biallelic pathogenic MMR (nonhereditary). The prevalence of Lynch syndrome was 18% in CRC < 40, 1.7% in CRC age 40-64 and 0.7% in CRC age 65-69. Age 65-69 represents most cases with dMMR, in which dMMR due to somatic causes (13%) is 20 times more prevalent than Lynch syndrome. In conclusion, up to age 65 routine diagnostics of (non-)heritable causes of dMMR CRCs effectively identifies Lynch syndrome and reduces Lynch-like diagnoses. Above age 64, the effort to detect one Lynch syndrome patient in dMMR CRC is high and germline testing rarely needed.