Next-generation strategies for hereditary colorectal cancer risk assessment

Diagnostic yield and clinical utility of a comprehensive gene panel for hereditary tumor syndromes

Background

In a considerable number of patients with a suspected hereditary tumor syndrome (HTS), no underlying germline mutation is detected in the most likely affected genes. The present study aimed to establish and validate a large gene panel for HTS, and determine its diagnostic yield and clinical utility.

Methods

The study cohort comprised 173 patients with suspected, but unexplained, HTS (group U) and 64 HTS patients with a broad spectrum of known germline mutations (group K). All patients in group U presented with early age at onset, multiple tumors, and/or a familial clustering of various tumor types; no germline mutation had been identified during routine diagnostics. Sequencing of leukocyte DNA was performed for the 94 HTS genes of the Illumina TruSight™Cancer Panel and 54 additional HTS genes.

Results

The sensitivity of the panel to identify known germline variants was 99.6%. In addition to known mutations, a total of 192 rare, potentially pathogenic germline variants in 86 genes were identified. Neither the proportion of rare variants per patient (group K: 0.9 variants; group U: 0.8 variants) nor the proportion of variants in the most frequently mutated, moderately penetrant genes CHEK2 and ATM showed significant inter-group difference. Four of the five patients from group U with a truncating CHEK2 mutation had thyroid cancer, pointing to a broader tumor spectrum in patients with pathogenic CHEK2 variants. In 22% of patients from group K, a further potential causative variant was identified. Here, the most interesting finding was an NF1 nonsense mutation in a child with a known TP53 frameshift mutation. In 17% of patients from group U, potential causative variants were identified. In three of these patients (2%), mutations in PMS2, PTEN, or POLD1 were considered to be causative. In both groups, incidental findings with presumptive predictive value were generated.

Conclusions

The gene panel identified the genetic cause in some prescreened, unexplained HTS patients and generated incidental findings. Some patients harbored predicted pathogenic mutations in more than one established HTS gene, rendering interpretation of the respective alterations challenging. Established moderate risk genes showed an almost equal distribution among patients with known and unexplained disease.

Pancreatic Cancer in Lynch Syndrome Patients

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer type in Lynch syndrome (LS) families, patients have also increased lifetime risk of other types of tumors. The accumulated risk of pancreatic cancer (PC) in LS patients is around 3.7% and developed tumors often present a characteristically medullary appearance with prominent lymphocytic infiltration. LS patients are considered in high risk for PC development as they present 8.6-fold increase compared with the general population.

Here we review PC cases reported in LS patients and current management guidelines. Literature data show that LS is clearly associated with PC and recent publications also demonstrated a connection with pancreatic neoplasic precursor lesions such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) in these patients.

While screening techniques are well established for CRC detection, clear strategies are not yet uniform for PC. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and/or endoscopic ultrasound every 1-2 years in MMR mutation carriers with PC in a first or second-degree relative is recommended.

Better pancreatic cancer detection strategies should be urgently defined due to the importance of early diagnosis in this disease.

Rapid detection of germline mutations for hereditary gastrointestinal polyposis/cancers using HaloPlex target enrichment and high-throughput sequencing technologies

Genetic testing for hereditary colorectal polyposis/cancers has become increasingly important. Therefore, the development of a timesaving diagnostic platform is indispensable for clinical practice. We designed and validated target enrichment sequencing for 20 genes implicated in familial gastrointestinal polyposis/cancers in 32 cases with previously confirmed mutations using the HaloPlex enrichment system and MiSeq. We demonstrated that HaloPlex captured the targeted regions with a high efficiency (99.66 % for covered target regions, and 99.998 % for breadth of coverage), and MiSeq achieved a high sequencing accuracy (98.6 % for the concordant rate with SNP arrays). Using this approach, we correctly identified 33/33 (100 %) confirmed alterations including SNV, small INDELs and large deletions, and insertions in APC, BMPR1A, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and SKT11. Our approach yielded the sequences of 20 target genes in a single experiment, and correctly identified all previously known mutations. Our results indicate that our approach successfully detected a wide range of genetic variations in a short turnaround time and with a small sample size for the rapid screening of known causative gene mutations of inherited colon cancer, such as familial adenomatous polyposis, Lynch syndrome, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, and Juvenile polyposis syndrome.

Prognostic impact of mismatch repair genes germline defects in colorectal cancer patients: are all mutations equal?

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome, caused by germline mutations in MisMatch Repair (MMR) genes, particularly in MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6. Patients with LS seem to have a more favourable prognosis than those with sporadic CRC, although the prognostic impact of different mutation types is unknown. Aim of our study is to compare survival outcomes of different types of MMR mutations in patients with LS-related CRC.

METHODS

302 CRC patients were prospectively selected on the basis of Amsterdam or Revised Bethesda criteria to undergo genetic testing: direct sequencing of DNA and MLPA were used to examine the entire MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 coding sequence. Patients were classified as mutation-positive or negative according to the genetic testing result.

RESULTS

A deleterious MMR mutation was found in 38/302 patients. Median overall survival (OS) was significantly higher in mutation-positive vs mutation-negative patients (102.6 vs 77.7 months, HR:0.63, 95%CI:0.46-0.89, p = 0.0083). Different types of mutation were significantly related with OS: missense or splicing-site mutations were associated with better OS compared with rearrangement, frameshift or non-sense mutations (132.5 vs 82.5 months, HR:0.46, 95%CI:0.16-0.82, p = 0.0153).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms improved OS for LS-patients compared with mutation-negative CRC patients. In addition, not all mutations could be considered equal: the better prognosis in CRC patients with MMR pathogenic missense or splicing site mutation could be due to different functional activity of the encoded MMR protein. This matter should be investigated by use of functional assays in the future.

Anorectal Cancer: Critical Anatomic and Staging Distinctions That Affect Use of Radiation Therapy

Although rectal and anal cancers are anatomically close, they are distinct entities with different histologic features, risk factors, staging systems, and treatment pathways. Imaging is at the core of initial clinical staging of these cancers and most commonly includes magnetic resonance imaging for local-regional staging and computed tomography for evaluation of metastatic disease. The details of the primary tumor and involvement of regional lymph nodes are crucial in determining if and how radiation therapy should be used in treatment of these cancers. Unfortunately, available imaging modalities have been shown to have imperfect accuracy for identification of nodal metastases and imaging features other than size. Staging of nonmetastatic rectal cancers is dependent on the depth of invasion (T stage) and the number of involved regional lymph nodes (N stage). Staging of nonmetastatic anal cancers is determined according to the size of the primary mass and the combination of regional nodal sites involved; the number of positive nodes at each site is not a consideration for staging. Patients with T3 rectal tumors and/or involvement of perirectal, mesenteric, and internal iliac lymph nodes receive radiation therapy. Almost all anal cancers warrant use of radiation therapy, but the extent and dose of the radiation fields is altered on the basis of both the size of the primary lesion and the presence and extent of nodal involvement. The radiologist must recognize and report these critical anatomic and staging distinctions, which affect use of radiation therapy in patients with anal and rectal cancers.

DNA Mismatch Repair Deficiency in Rectal Cancer: Benchmarking Its Impact on Prognosis, Neoadjuvant Response Prediction, and Clinical Cancer Genetics

PURPOSE

DNA mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) hallmarks consensus molecular subtype 1 of colorectal cancer. It is being routinely tested, but little is known about dMMR rectal cancers. The efficacy of novel treatment strategies cannot be established without benchmarking the outcomes of dMMR rectal cancer with current therapy. We aimed to delineate the impact of dMMR on prognosis, the predicted response to fluoropyrimidine-based neoadjuvant therapy, and implications of germline alterations in the MMR genes in rectal cancer.

METHODS

Between 1992 and 2012, 62 patients with dMMR rectal cancers underwent multimodality therapy. Oncologic treatment and outcomes as well as clinical genetics work-up were examined. Overall and rectal cancer-specific survival were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

The median age at diagnosis was 41 years. MMR deficiency was most commonly due to alterations in MSH2 (53%) or MSH6 (23%). After a median follow-up of 6.8 years, the 5-year rectal cancer-specific survival was 100% for stage I and II, 85.1% for stage III, and 60.0% for stage IV disease. Fluoropyrimidine-based neoadjuvant chemoradiation was associated with a complete pathologic response rate of 27.6%. The extent of surgical resection was influenced by synchronous colonic disease at presentation, tumor height, clinical stage, and pelvic radiation. An informed decision for a limited resection focusing on proctectomy did not compromise overall survival. Five of the 11 (45.5%) deaths during follow-up were due to extracolorectal malignancies.

CONCLUSION

dMMR rectal cancer had excellent prognosis and pathologic response with current multimodality therapy including an individualized surgical treatment plan. Identification of a dMMR rectal cancer should trigger germline testing, followed by lifelong surveillance for both colorectal and extracolorectal malignancies. We herein provide genotype-specific outcome benchmarks for comparison with novel interventions.

Advances in Hereditary Colorectal and Pancreatic Cancers

PURPOSE

Innovations in genetic medicine have led to improvements in the early detection, prevention, and treatment of cancer for patients with inherited risks of gastrointestinal cancer, particularly hereditary colorectal cancer and hereditary pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

This review provides an update on recent data and key advances that have improved the identification, understanding, and management of patients with hereditary colorectal cancer and hereditary pancreatic cancer.

FINDINGS

This review details recent and emerging data that highlight the developing landscape of genetics in hereditary colorectal and pancreatic cancer risk. A summary is provided of the current state-of-the-art practices for identifying, evaluating, and managing patients with suspected hereditary colorectal cancer and pancreatic cancer risk. The impact of next-generation sequencing technologies in the clinical diagnosis of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer and also in discovery efforts of new genes linked to familial cancer risk are discussed. Emerging targeted therapies that may play a particularly important role in the treatment of patients with hereditary forms of colorectal cancer and pancreatic cancer are also reviewed. Current approaches for pancreatic cancer screening and the psychosocial impact of such procedures are also detailed.

IMPLICATIONS

Given the availability of new diagnostic, risk-reducing, and therapeutic strategies that exist for patients with hereditary risk of colorectal or pancreatic cancer, it is imperative that clinicians be vigilant about evaluating patients for hereditary cancer syndromes. Continuing to advance genetics research in hereditary gastrointestinal cancers will allow for more progress to be made in personalized medicine and prevention.