Features of incident colorectal cancer in Lynch syndrome

Features of colorectal adenomas among young patients with Lynch syndrome according to path_MMR: Results from the PRED-IdF registry

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most frequent inherited colorectal cancer syndrome.

AIM

To assess the burden of adenoma in LS patients under 50 years-old followed in the PRED-IdF network.

METHODS

From January 2010 to January 2019, all patients under 50 years of age with a confirmed LS germline mutation were included. The main objective was the description of adenomas characteristics according to path_MMR.

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 708 patients (mean age 34.8 ± 8.6), of which 41.8 % were male. Among these patients, 37.6% had path_MLH1, 45.4% path_MSH2, 13.9% path_MSH6, 2.9% path_PMS2, and 1.2% path_EpCAM. The analysis included 1721 (70.9%) follow-up colonoscopies. A total of 682 adenomas were detected, including 140 (20.5%) advanced adenomas. The adenoma detection rates during the first and follow-up colonoscopies were 19.2% and 20.5%, respectively. Most adenomas were <10 mm (57.9%), located in the proximal colon (334, 48.9%), and presented as non-polypoid lesions (493, 72.3%). The median growth time for adenomas was 23 months (range 9-114) irrespective of the path_MMR mutation (p = 0.62).

CONCLUSION

LS patients under 50 years of age have a high burden of adenomas, particularly small non-polypoid adenomas located in the proximal colon. These results highlight the need for intensive screening, with a particular focus on the proximal colon.

The Role of Colonoscopy in the Management of Individuals with Lynch Syndrome: A Narrative Review

The history of Lynch syndrome changed definitively in 2000, when a study published in Gastroenterology demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality among individuals with Lynch syndrome who undergo regular endoscopic surveillance. As a consequence of this clinical evidence, all scientific societies developed guidelines, which highlighted the role of colonoscopy in the management of Lynch syndrome, especially for individuals at high risk of colorectal cancer. Over the years, these guidelines were modified and updated. Specialized networks were developed in order to standardize endoscopic surveillance programs and evaluate all the clinical data retrieved by the results of colonoscopies performed for both the screening and the surveillance of individuals with Lynch syndrome. Recent data show that the impact of colonoscopy (with polypectomy) on the prevention of colorectal cancer in individuals with Lynch syndrome is less significant than previously thought. This narrative review summarizes the current discussion, the hypotheses elaborated and the algorithms depicted for the management of individuals with Lynch Syndrome on the basis of the recent data published in the literature.

Chromoendoscopy Is Not Superior to White Light Endoscopy in Improving Adenoma Detection in Lynch Syndrome Cohort Undergoing Surveillance with High-Resolution Colonoscopy: A Real-World Evidence Study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic surveillance in patients with Lynch syndrome (LS) is crucial due to a genetically based high risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) between high-resolution white light endoscopy (WLE) alone and WLE plus dye chromoendoscopy (CE) in a cohort of LS patients.

METHODS

In a context of real-world data, we retrospectively enrolled 50 LS patients who had non-randomly undergone WLE versus CE surveillance examinations from 2007 to 2019. The 2 groups were compared at baseline (BL) in terms of the rate of patients with lesions and the number of lesions, and at follow-up (FU), to evaluate a possible enhanced detection rate. Longitudinal analysis of the effect of the endoscopy type on the main outcomes was performed by generalized linear mixed models.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients had undergone at least one diagnostic colonoscopy. At BL and at FU analysis, we found no significant differences in detection rates and clinical-pathological features between WLE and CE groups. At the longitudinal analysis, an increase in the endoscopy rank (i.e., the position of each colonoscopy for all the colonoscopies that a patient had undergone) was associated with an increase in polyp detection rate (p = 0.006) and ADR (p = 0.005), while a trend toward significance (p = 0.069) was found for endoscopy type (CE vs. WLE) in the detection of serrated lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

CE is not superior to high-resolution WLE in increasing the ADR. Even under standard WLE, an active and careful endoscopic surveillance of LS patients can prevent CRC.

Distinct Mutational Profile of Lynch Syndrome Colorectal Cancers Diagnosed under Regular Colonoscopy Surveillance

Regular colonoscopy even with short intervals does not prevent all colorectal cancers (CRC) in Lynch syndrome (LS). In the present study, we asked whether cancers detected under regular colonoscopy surveillance (incident cancers) are phenotypically different from cancers detected at first colonoscopy (prevalent cancers). We analyzed clinical, histological, immunological and mutational characteristics, including panel sequencing and high-throughput coding microsatellite (cMS) analysis, in 28 incident and 67 prevalent LS CRCs (n total = 95). Incident cancers presented with lower UICC and T stage compared to prevalent cancers (p < 0.0005). The majority of incident cancers (21/28) were detected after previous colonoscopy without any pathological findings. On the molecular level, incident cancers presented with a significantly lower KRAS codon 12/13 (1/23, 4.3% vs. 11/21, 52%; p = 0.0005) and pathogenic TP53 mutation frequency (0/17, 0% vs. 7/21, 33.3%; p = 0.0108,) compared to prevalent cancers; 10/17 (58.8%) incident cancers harbored one or more truncating APC mutations, all showing mutational signatures of mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency. The proportion of MMR deficiency-related mutational events was significantly higher in incident compared to prevalent CRC (p = 0.018). In conclusion, our study identifies a set of features indicative of biological differences between incident and prevalent cancers in LS, which should further be monitored in prospective LS screening studies to guide towards optimized prevention protocols.

Colorectal cancer screening in Lynch syndrome: Indication, techniques and future perspectives

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited predisposition to colorectal cancer (CRC), responsible for 3-5% of all CRC. This syndrome is characterized by the early occurrence of colorectal neoplastic lesions, with variable incidences depending on the type of pathogenic variants in MMR genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 and EPCAM) and demographics factors such as gender, body mass index, tobacco use and physical activity. Similar to sporadic cancers, colorectal screening by colonoscopy is efficient because it is associated with a reduction >50% of both CRC incidence and CRC related mortality. To that end, most guidelines recommend high definition screening colonoscopies in dedicated centers, starting at the age of 20-25 years old, with a surveillance interval of 1-2 years. In this review, we discuss the importance of high definition colonoscopies, including the compliance to specific key performance indicators, as well as the expected benefits of specific imaging modalities including virtual chromoendoscopy and dye-spray chromoendoscopy.

Progress Report: New insights into the prevention of CRC by colonoscopic surveillance in Lynch syndrome

Lynch syndrome is the most frequent hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome, affecting approximately 1 in 300 in the Western population. It is caused by pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes including MLH1, MSH2 (EPCAM), MSH6 and PMS2, and is associated with high risks of CRC, endometrial cancer and other cancers. In view of these risks, carriers of such variants are encouraged to participate in colonoscopic surveillance programs that are known to substantially improve their prognosis. In the last decade several important studies have been published that provide detailed cancer risk estimates and prognoses based on large numbers of patients. These studies also provided new insights regarding the pathways of carcinogenesis in CRC, which appear to differ depending on the specific MMR gene defect. In this report, we will discuss the implications of these new findings for the development of new surveillance protocols.

A 3D View of Colorectal Cancer Models in Predicting Therapeutic Responses and Resistance

Although there have been many advances in recent years for the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC), it still remains the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Many patients with late stage CRC display resistance to multiple different therapeutics. An important aspect in developing effective therapeutics for CRC patients is understanding the interactions that take place in the tumor microenvironment (TME), as it has been shown to contribute to drug resistance in vivo. Much research over the past 100 years has focused on 2D monolayer cultures or in vivo studies, however, the efficacy in translating these to the clinic is very low. More recent studies are turning towards developing an effective 3D model of CRC that is clinically relevant, that can recapitulate the TME in vitro and bridge the gap between 2D cultures and in vivo studies, with the aim of reducing the use of animal models in the future. This review summarises the advantages and limitations of different 3D CRC models. It emphasizes how different 3D models may be optimised to study cellular and extracellular interactions that take place in the TME of CRC in an effort to allow the development of more translatable effective treatment options for patients.

Causes of Post-Colonoscopy Colorectal Cancers Based on World Endoscopy Organization System of Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) is CRC diagnosed after a colonoscopy in which no cancer was found. A consensus article from the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) proposed an approach for investigating and categorizing PCCRCs detected within 4 years of a colonoscopy. We aimed to identify cases of PCCRC and the factors that cause them, test the WEO system of categorization, quantify the proportion of avoidable PCCRCs, and propose a target rate for PCCRCs detected within 3 years of a colonoscopy that did not detect CRC.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 107 PCCRCs identified at a single medical center in England from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2017 using coding and endoscopy data. For each case, we reviewed clinical, pathology, radiology, and endoscopy findings. Using the WEO recommendations, we performed a root-cause analysis of each case, categorizing lesions as follows: possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate; possible missed lesion, prior examination inadequate; detected lesion, not resected; or likely incomplete resection of previously identified lesion. We determined whether PCCRCs could be attributed to the colonoscopist for technical or decision-making reasons, and whether the PCCRC was avoidable or unavoidable, based on the WEO categorization and size of tumor. The endoscopy reporting system provided performance data for individual endoscopists.

RESULTS

Of the PCCRCs identified, 43% were in high-risk patients (those with inflammatory bowel disease, previous CRC, previous multiple large polyps, or hereditary cancer syndromes) and 66% were located distal to the hepatic flexure. There was no correlation between postcolonoscopy colorectal tumor size and time to diagnosis after index colonoscopy. Bowel preparation was poor in 19% of index colonoscopies, and only 36% of complete colonoscopies had adequate photodocumentation of completion. Development of 73% of PCCRCs was determined to be affected by technical endoscopic factors, 17% of PCCRCs by administrative factors (follow-up procedures delayed/not booked by administrative staff), and 27% of PCCRCs by decision-making factors. Twenty-seven percent of PCCRCs were categorized as possible missed lesion, prior examination adequate; 58% as possible missed lesion, prior examination inadequate; 8% as detected lesion, not resected; and 7% as incomplete resection of previously observed lesion; 89% were deemed to be avoidable.

CONCLUSIONS

In a retrospective analysis of PCCRCs, using the WEO system of categorization, we found 43% to occur in high-risk patients; this might be reduced with more vigilant surveillance. Measures are needed to reduce technical, decision-making, and administrative factors. We found that 89% of PCCRCs may be avoidable. If half of avoidable PCCRCs could be prevented, the target rate of 2% for the PCCRC-3y (cancer diagnosed between 6 and 36 months after index colonoscopy) benchmark would be achievable.

Associations of Pathogenic Variants in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 With Risk of Colorectal Adenomas and Tumors and With Somatic Mutations in Patients With Lynch Syndrome

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Lynch syndrome is caused by variants in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes and associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). In patients with Lynch syndrome, CRCs can develop via different pathways. We studied associations between Lynch syndrome-associated variants in MMR genes and risks of adenoma and CRC and somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1 in tumors in an international cohort of patients.

METHODS

We combined clinical and molecular data from 3 studies. We obtained clinical data from 2747 patients with Lynch syndrome associated with variants in MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 from Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland who received at least 2 surveillance colonoscopies and were followed for a median time of 7.8 years for development of adenomas or CRC. We performed DNA sequence analyses of 48 colorectal tumors (from 16 patients with mutations in MLH1, 29 patients with mutations in MSH2, and 3 with mutations in MSH6) for somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1.

RESULTS

Risk of advanced adenoma in 10 years was 17.8% in patients with pathogenic variants in MSH2 vs 7.7% in MLH1 (P < .001). Higher proportions of patients with pathogenic variants in MLH1 or MSH2 developed CRC in 10 years (11.3% and 11.4%) than patients with pathogenic variants in MSH6 (4.7%) (P = .001 and P = .003 for MLH1 and MSH2 vs MSH6, respectively). Somatic mutations in APC were found in 75% of tumors from patients with pathogenic variants in MSH2 vs 11% in MLH1 (P = .015). Somatic mutations in CTNNB1 were found in 50% of tumors from patients with pathogenic variants in MLH1 vs 7% in MSH2 (P = .002). None of the 3 tumors with pathogenic variants in MSH6 had a mutation in CTNNB1, but all had mutations in APC.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of clinical and DNA sequence data from patients with Lynch syndrome from 3 countries, we associated pathogenic variants in MMR genes with risk of adenoma and CRC, and somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1 in colorectal tumors. If these findings are confirmed, surveillance guidelines might be adjusted based on MMR gene variants.

Endoscopic full thickness resection for early colon cancer in Lynch syndrome

Subtotal colectomy is usually the therapy of choice in Lynch syndrome patients diagnosed with colon cancer. In patients who develop cancer after the age of 50-60 years, segmental colectomy is considered a good alternative. Although the endoscopic treatment of early colorectal cancer in non-Lynch patients has increased in the last decades, almost all patients with a Lynch syndrome-associated colorectal malignancy undergo surgery, even if the tumour is diagnosed in a (very) early stage. One of the endoscopic treatment options for early colorectal cancer is an endoscopic full thickness resection (eFTR). This treatment modality allows optimal pathological examination of the resection specimen, as a transmural resection is performed with optimal T-staging of the tumour. We report a case of a 62 year old man, diagnosed with MSH2-Lynch syndrome, who underwent successful eFTR treatment of an early (pT1) colon cancer located in the ascending colon, with no signs of recurrence 12 months after treatment. We discuss the pros and cons of endoscopic resection of early colorectal carcinoma in Lynch syndrome patients.