Genetic testing in inherited polyposis syndromes - how and why?

Undefined familial colorectal cancer and the role of pleiotropism in cancer susceptibility genes

Although family history is a major risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC) a genetic diagnosis cannot be obtained in over 50 % of familial cases when screened for known CRC cancer susceptibility genes. The genetics of undefined-familial CRC is complex and recent studies have implied additional clinically actionable mutations for CRC in susceptibility genes for other cancers. To clarify the contribution of non-CRC susceptibility genes to undefined-familial CRC we conducted a mutational screen of 114 cancer susceptibility genes in 847 patients with early-onset undefined-familial CRC and 1609 controls by analysing high-coverage exome sequencing data. We implemented American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics standards and guidelines for assigning pathogenicity to variants. Globally across all 114 cancer susceptibility genes no statistically significant enrichment of likely pathogenic variants was shown (6.7 % cases 57/847, 5.3 % controls 85/1609; P = 0.15). Moreover there was no significant enrichment of mutations in genes such as TP53 or BRCA2 which have been proposed for clinical testing in CRC. In conclusion, while we identified genes that may be considered interesting candidates as determinants of CRC risk warranting further research, there is currently scant evidence to support a role for genes other than those responsible for established CRC syndromes in the clinical management of familial CRC.

Genetic diagnosis of high-penetrance susceptibility for colorectal cancer (CRC) is achievable for a high proportion of familial CRC by exome sequencing

PURPOSE

Knowledge of the contribution of high-penetrance susceptibility to familial colorectal cancer (CRC) is relevant to the counseling, treatment, and surveillance of CRC patients and families.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

To quantify the impact of germline mutation to familial CRC, we sequenced the mismatch repair genes (MMR) APC, MUTYH, and SMAD4/BMPR1A in 626 early-onset familial CRC cases ascertained through a population-based United Kingdom national registry. In addition, we evaluated the contribution of mutations in the exonuclease domain (exodom) of POLE and POLD1 genes that have recently been reported to confer CRC risk.

RESULTS

Overall mutations (pathogenic, likely pathogenic) in MMR genes make the highest contribution to familial CRC (10.9%). Mutations in the other established CRC genes account for 3.3% of cases. POLE/POLD1 exodom mutations were identified in three patients with family histories consistent with dominant transmission of CRC. Collectively, mutations in the known genes account for 14.2% of familial CRC (89 of 626 cases; 95% CI = 11.5, 17.2).

CONCLUSION

A genetic diagnosis is feasible in a high proportion of familial CRC. Mainstreaming such analysis in clinical practice should enable the medical management of patients and their families to be optimized. Findings suggest CRC screening of POLE and POLD1 mutation carriers should be comparable to that afforded to those at risk of HNPCC. Although the risk of CRC associated with unexplained familial CRC is in general moderate, in some families the risk is substantive and likely to be the consequence of unidentified genes, as exemplified by POLE and POLD1. Our findings have utility in the design of genetic analyses to identify such novel CRC risk genes.