Cost-effectiveness analysis of reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer in the UK setting. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0221419. [PMID: 31469860 PMCID: PMC6716649 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221419]

Mismatch repair deficiency: how reliable is the two-antibody approach? A national real-life study

AIMS

Traditionally, mismatch repair (MMR) status is determined by a panel of four antibodies (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, MSH6). If all proteins are retained, cases are MMR proficient (pMMR), while loss of one or more proteins is indicative of MMR deficiency (dMMR). This approach has been challenged in favour of a two-antibody approach, using PMS2 and MSH6 as a first screening. Their retainment is deemed sufficient to declare cases pMMR. In this study we aim to verify the validity of the two-antibody approach.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a nationwide study in colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer (EC) diagnosed between 2016 and 2023, including 47,657 patients to evaluate the two-antibody approach. In 0.17% and 0.4% of cases of CRC and EC, respectively, dMMR cases would be missed with the two-antibody approach. Subgroup analyses pointed towards slightly increased miss rates in younger patients (under the age of 50 years) in both groups and identified special subtypes (signet ring cell carcinoma, medullary carcinoma, and mucinous carcinoma in CRC and clear cell carcinoma in EC) with increased miss rates. For these specific subgroups, a low threshold should be used for further testing. In case of ambiguous or heterogeneous staining patterns, four antibodies should be used.

CONCLUSION

In general, the application of a two-antibody MMR testing strategy does not lead to considerable failure of dMMR identification and saves costs.

Screening and testing practices for Lynch syndrome in Nova Scotians with endometrial cancer: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Identifying people with Lynch syndrome, a genetic condition predisposing those affected to colorectal, endometrial and other cancers, allows for implementation of risk-reducing strategies for patients and their families. The goal of this study was to describe screening and testing practices for this condition among people with endometrial cancer in Nova Scotia, Canada, and to determine the prevalence of Lynch syndrome in this population.

METHODS

All patients diagnosed with endometrial cancer in Nova Scotia between May 1, 2017, and Apr. 30, 2020 were identified through a provincial gynecologic oncology database. Patients from out of province were excluded. We collected age, body mass index, tumour mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry results, personal and family histories, and germline testing information for all patients.

RESULTS

We identified 465 people diagosed with endometrial cancer during the study period. Most were aged 51 years or older, and had obesity and low-grade early-stage endometrioid tumours. Tumour immunohistochemistry testing was performed in 444 cases (95.5%). Based on local criteria, 189 patients were eligible for genetic counselling, of whom 156 (82.5%) were referred to medical genetics. Of the 98 patients who underwent germline testing, 9 (9.2%) were diagnosed with Lynch syndrome.

INTERPRETATION

The prevalence of Lynch syndrome was at least 1.9% (9/465) in this population. Our results illustrate successful implementation of universal tumour testing; however, there remains a gap in access to genetic counselling.

Endometrial Cancer. Guideline of the DGGG, DKG and DKH (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 032/034-OL, September 2022). Part 1 with Recommendations on the Epidemiology, Screening, Diagnosis and Hereditary Factors of Endometrial Cancer, Geriatric Assessment and Supply Structures

Summary The S3-guideline on endometrial cancer, first published in April 2018, was reviewed in its entirety between April 2020 and January 2022 and updated. The review was carried out at the request of German Cancer Aid as part of the Oncology Guidelines Program and the lead coordinators were the German Society for Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG), the Gynecology Oncology Working Group (AGO) of the German Cancer Society (DKG) and the German Cancer Aid (DKH). The guideline update was based on a systematic search and assessment of the literature published between 2016 and 2020. All statements, recommendations and background texts were reviewed and either confirmed or amended. New statements and recommendations were included where necessary. Aim The use of evidence-based risk-adapted therapies to treat women with endometrial cancer of low risk prevents unnecessarily radical surgery and avoids non-beneficial adjuvant radiation therapy and/or chemotherapy. For women with endometrial cancer and a high risk of recurrence, the guideline defines the optimum level of radical surgery and indicates whether chemotherapy and/or adjuvant radiation therapy is necessary. This should improve the survival rates and quality of life of these patients. The S3-guideline on endometrial cancer and the quality indicators based on the guideline aim to provide the basis for the work of certified gynecological cancer centers. Methods The guideline was first compiled in 2018 in accordance with the requirements for S3-level guidelines and was updated in 2022. The update included an adaptation of the source guidelines identified using the German Instrument for Methodological Guideline Appraisal (DELBI). The update also used evidence reviews which were created based on selected literature obtained from systematic searches in selected literature databases using the PICO process. The Clinical Guidelines Service Group was tasked with carrying out a systematic search and assessment of the literature. Their results were used by interdisciplinary working groups as a basis for developing suggestions for recommendations and statements which were then modified during structured online consensus conferences and/or additionally amended online using the DELPHI process to achieve a consensus. Recommendations Part 1 of this short version of the guideline provides recommendations on epidemiology, screening, diagnosis, and hereditary factors. The epidemiology of endometrial cancer and the risk factors for developing endometrial cancer are presented. The options for screening and the methods used to diagnose endometrial cancer are outlined. Recommendations are given for the prevention, diagnosis, and therapy of hereditary forms of endometrial cancer. The use of geriatric assessment is considered and existing structures of care are presented.

A Focused Clinical Review of Lynch Syndrome

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant condition that increases an individual's risk of a constellation of cancers. LS is defined when an individual has inherited pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes. Currently, most people with LS are undiagnosed. Early detection of LS is vital as those with LS can be enrolled in cancer reduction strategies through chemoprophylaxis, risk reducing surgery and cancer surveillance. However, these interventions are often invasive and require refinement. Furthermore, not all LS associated cancers are currently amenable to surveillance. Historically only those with a strong family history suggestive of LS were offered testing; this has proved far too restrictive. New criteria for testing have recently been introduced including the universal screening for LS in associated cancers. This has increased the number of people being diagnosed with LS but has also brought about unique challenges such as when to consent for germline testing and questions over how and who should carry out the consent. The results of germline testing for LS can be complicated and the diagnostic pathway is not always clear. Furthermore, by testing only those with cancer for LS we fail to identify these individuals before they develop potentially fatal pathology. This review will outline these challenges and explore solutions. Furthermore, we consider the potential future of LS care and the related treatments and interventions which are the current focus of research.

Effective and Efficient Delivery of Genome-Based Testing-What Conditions Are Necessary for Health System Readiness?

Health systems internationally must prepare for a future of genetic/genomic testing to inform healthcare decision-making while creating research opportunities. High functioning testing services will require additional considerations and health system conditions beyond traditional diagnostic testing. Based on a literature review of good practices, key informant interviews, and expert discussion, this article attempts to synthesize what conditions are necessary, and what good practice may look like. It is intended to aid policymakers and others designing future systems of genome-based care and care prevention. These conditions include creating communities of practice and healthcare system networks; resource planning; across-region informatics; having a clear entry/exit point for innovation; evaluative function(s); concentrated or coordinated service models; mechanisms for awareness and care navigation; integrating innovation and healthcare delivery functions; and revisiting approaches to financing, education and training, regulation, and data privacy and security. The list of conditions we propose was developed with an emphasis on describing conditions that would be applicable to any healthcare system, regardless of capacity, organizational structure, financing, population characteristics, standardization of care processes, or underlying culture.

The Role of Immunohistochemistry Markers in Endometrial Cancer with Mismatch Repair Deficiency: A Systematic Review

The objective of this systematic review was to summarize our current knowledge of the role of immunohistochemistry (IHC) markers for identifying mismatch repair-deficient (MMRd) tumors in endometrial cancer (EC). Identification of MMRd tumors, which occur in 13% to 30% of all ECs, has become critical for patients with colorectal and endometrial cancer for therapeutic management, clinical decision making, and prognosis. This review was conducted by two authors applying the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the following terms: “immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability endometrial cancer” or “immunohistochemistry and mismatch repair endometrial cancer” or “immunohistochemistry and mismatch repair deficient endometrial cancer”. Among 596 retrieved studies, 161 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Articles were classified and presented according to their interest for the diagnosis, prognosis, and theragnostics for patients with MMRd EC. We identified 10, 18, and 96 articles using IHC expression of two, three, or four proteins of the MMR system (MLH1, MSH2, MHS6, and PMS2), respectively. MLH1 promoter methylation was analyzed in 57 articles. Thirty-four articles classified MMRd tumors with IHC markers according to their prognosis in terms of recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), stage, grade, and lymph node invasion. Theragnostics were studied in eight articles underlying the important concentration of PD-L1 in MMRd EC. Even though the role of IHC has been challenged, it represents the most common, robust, and cheapest method for diagnosing MMRd tumors in EC and is a valuable tool for exploring novel biotherapies and treatment modalities.

Testing for Lynch Syndrome in Endometrial Carcinoma: From Universal to Age-Selective MLH1 Methylation Analysis

International guidelines recommend universal screening of endometrial carcinoma (EC) patients for Lynch syndrome (LS). This screening is generally based on mismatch repair (MMR) protein immunohistochemistry followed by MLH1 methylation analysis of MLH1-negative cases to exclude the likely sporadic cases from germline testing. As LS-associated EC is uncommon in the elderly, age-selective methylation testing could improve cost-efficiency. We performed MMR immunohistochemistry on 821 unselected ECs (clinic-based cohort) followed by a MLH1 promoter methylation test of all MLH1/PMS2-negative tumors. Non-methylated MLH1-deficient cases underwent NGS and MLPA-based germline analyses to identify MLH1 mutation carriers. A reduction in the test burden and corresponding false negative rates for LS screening were investigated for various age cut-offs. In addition, the age distribution of 132 MLH1 mutation carriers diagnosed with EC (registry-based cohort) was examined. A germline MLH1 mutation was found in 2/14 patients with non-methylated MLH1-deficient EC. When compared to a universal methylation analysis, selective testing with a cut-off age of 65 years, would have reduced the testing effort by 70.7% with a false negative rate for LS detection of 0% and 3% in the clinic and registry-based cohorts, respectively. The use of age-selective methylation analysis is a feasible way of reducing the costs and laboratory burden in LS screening for EC patients.

Screening of Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer in Iranian population with mismatch repair protein by immunohistochemistry

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome (LS) is one of the commonest genetic cancer syndromes, with an incidence rate of 1 per 250-1000 population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency and characteristics of MMR deficiency in endometrial cancer in Iranian women.

METHODS

One hundred endometrial carcinoma cases who referred to the gynecological oncology clinic of Imam Hossein Medical Center located in Tehran, Iran, from 2018 to 2020 were included in the study. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) evaluation was performed mainly on the hysterectomy specimens of all endometrial cancer (EC) patients to assess MMR proteins (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) expression.

RESULTS

A total of 23 out of 100 (23%) cases were identified through IHC screening to be MMR-deficient. The most common types were loss of MLH1/PMS2 (17.4%) and solitary MSH2 (17.4%) expressions followed by PMS2/MSH2 loss (13%). MMR deficiency (dMMR) histopathology was significantly overrepresented in patients with family history of cancer or Lynch syndrome (LS) associated cancers (p-values of 0.016 and 0.005, respectively). The rate of myometrial invasion and lower uterine segment involvement were also significantly higher in dMMR EC patients compared to MMR-intact EC (p-value of 0.021 and 0.018, respectively).

CONCLUSION

MMR deficiency, observed in 23% of endometrial cancer cases, was associated with higher rates of poor prognostic factors including myometrial invasion and lower uterine segment involvement. The presence of positive family history of cancer and family history of LS-associated cancer increased the probability of MMR-deficiency in endometrioid endometrial cancer to 47% and 70%, respectively.

Validity of a two-antibody testing algorithm for mismatch repair deficiency testing in cancer; a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Reflex mismatch repair immunohistochemistry (MMR IHC) testing for MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 and MSH6 is used to screen for Lynch syndrome. Recently MMR-deficiency (MMRd) has been approved as a pan-cancer predictive biomarker for checkpoint inhibitor therapy, leading to a vast increase in the use of MMR IHC in clinical practice. We explored whether immunohistochemical staining with PMS2 and MSH6 can be used as a reliable substitute. This two-antibody testing algorithm has the benefit of saving tissue, cutting costs and saving time. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were systematically searched for articles reporting on MMR IHC. The weighed percentage of cases with isolated MLH1 or MSH2 loss or combined MLH1/MSH2 loss alone was analyzed using a random effects model meta-analysis in R. The search yielded 1704 unique citations, of which 131 studies were included, describing 9014 patients. A weighed percentage of 1.1% (95% CI 0.53-18.87, I = 87%) of cases with isolated MLH1 or MSH2 loss or combined MLH1/MSH2 loss alone was observed. In the six articles with the main aim of investigating the two-antibody testing algorithm all MMRd cases were detected with the two-antibody testing algorithm, there were no cases with isolated MLH1 or MSH2 loss or combined MLH1/MSH2 loss alone. This high detection rate of MMRd of the two-antibody testing algorithm supports its use in clinical practice by specialized pathologists. Staining of all four antibodies should remain the standard in cases with equivocal results of the two-antibody testing algorithm. Finally, educational sessions in which staining pattern pitfalls are discussed will continue to be important.

Determination of test performance of two contemporary screening tests for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer: A clinical trial

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Published data on the performance of the immunohistochemistry (IHC) test for mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression to detect Lynch syndrome (LS) index cases suggests it is highly variable; its performance in our system was unknown. Moreover, a brief family history questionnaire (bFHQ) developed by Eiriksson and colleagues in Canada demonstrated 100% sensitivity for LS case identification thus was of interest to us, but its performance outside of its original setting was unknown. Determination of the performance of these tests requires complete LS case identification in the testing population.

METHODS

Two hundred women were recruited during routine care for endometrial cancer (EC) to administer the bFHQ and perform genetic testing for the LS genes. Independently, the IHC test was performed to screen for presumptive LS cases. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the bFHQ and IHC test as well as simulating outcomes of the complete protocols.

RESULTS

Genetic testing all participants identified 8 cases of LS out of 200 (4% prevalence), the bFHQ identified 5 of 8 of these cases (62.5%, CI: 31.5%-87.6%), and the IHC test identified 6 or 7 of 8 cases (mean of 75% or 87.5%) depending on interpretation of test results. The specificities of the bFHQ and IHC test were 56.8% (CI: 49.8%-63.7%) and 79.8% (CI: 73.6%-85.1%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first, to our knowledge, to test the effectiveness of the bFHQ in an EC population since its original reporting; our results are consistent with many reports of the challenges of collecting family health history. The performance of the IHC test as a screen falls within ranges reported in the literature but do not provide the confidence to drive a decision for or against continued use of this test as a LS screen.

Cost-effective screening using a two-antibody panel for detecting mismatch repair deficiency in sporadic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The microsatellite instability (MSI) test and immunohistochemistry (IHC) are widely used to screen DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency in sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC). For IHC, a two-antibody panel of MLH1 and MSH2 or four-antibody panel of MLH1, MSH2, PMS2, and MSH6 are used. In general, MSI is known as a more accurate screening test than IHC.

AIM

To compare two- and four-antibody panels of IHC in terms of accuracy and cost benefit on the basis of MSI testing for detecting MMR deficiency.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients with CRC who underwent curative surgery between 2015 and 2017 at a tertiary referral center. Both IHC with four antibodies and MSI tests were routinely performed. The sensitivity and specificity of a four- and two types of two-antibody panels (PMS2/MSH6 and MLH1/MSH2) were compared on the basis of MSI testing for detecting MMR deficiency.

RESULTS

High-frequency MSI was found in 5.5% (n = 193) of the patients (n = 3486). The sensitivities of the four- and two types of two-antibody panels were 97.4%, 92.2%, and 87.6%, respectively. The specificities of the three types of panels did not differ significantly (99.6% for the four-antibody and PMS2/MSH6 panels, 99.7% for the MLH1/MSH2 panel). Based on Cohen's kappa statistic (κ), four- and two-antibody panels were in almost perfect agreement with the MSI test (κ > 0.9). The costs of the MSI test and the four- and two-antibody panels of IHC were approximately $200, $160, and $80, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Considering the cost of the four-antibody panel IHC compared to that of the two-antibody panel IHC, a two-antibody panel of PMS2/MSH6 might be the best choice in terms of balancing cost-effectiveness and accuracy.

Endometrial cancer in Lynch syndrome

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant inherited disease caused by germline pathogenic variants (PVs) in mismatch repair (MMR) genes. LS-associated endometrial cancer (LS-EC) is the most common extraintestinal sentinel cancer caused by germline PVs in MMR genes, including MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2. The clinicopathologic features of LS-EC include early age of onset, lower body mass index (BMI), endometrioid carcinoma and lower uterine segment involvement. There has been significant progress in screening, diagnosis, surveillance, prevention and treatment of LS-EC. Many studies support universal screening for LS among patients with EC. Screening mainly involves a combination of traditional clinical criteria and molecular techniques, including MMR-immunohistochemistry (MMR-IHC), microsatellite instability (MSI) testing, MLH1 promoter methylation testing and gene sequencing. The effectiveness of endometrial biopsy and transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) for clinical monitoring of asymptomatic women with LS are uncertain yet. Preventive strategies include hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) as well as chemoprophylaxis using exogenous progestin or aspirin. Recent research has revealed the benefits of immunotherapy for LS-EC. The NCCN guidelines recommend pembrolizumab and nivolumab for treating patients with advanced or recurrent microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) EC.

Testing strategies for Lynch syndrome in people with endometrial cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome is an inherited genetic condition that is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended that people with colorectal cancer are tested for Lynch syndrome. Routine testing for Lynch syndrome among people with endometrial cancer is not currently conducted.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence on the test accuracy of immunohistochemistry- and microsatellite instability-based strategies to detect Lynch syndrome among people who have endometrial cancer, and the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of testing for Lynch syndrome among people who have been diagnosed with endometrial cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were conducted in the following databases, from inception to August 2019 - MEDLINE ALL, EMBASE (both via Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (both via Wiley Online Library), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment Database (both via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (both via Web of Science), PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination), NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, EconPapers (Research Papers in Economics) and School of Health and Related Research Health Utilities Database. The references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews were also checked and experts on the team were consulted.

REVIEW METHODS

Eligible studies included people with endometrial cancer who were tested for Lynch syndrome using immunohistochemistry- and/or microsatellite instability-based testing [with or without mutL homologue 1 (MLH1) promoter hypermethylation testing], with Lynch syndrome diagnosis being established though germline testing of normal (non-tumour) tissue for constitutional mutations in mismatch repair. The risk of bias in studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool, the Consolidated Health Economic Reporting Standards and the Philips' checklist. Two reviewers independently conducted each stage of the review. A meta-analysis of test accuracy was not possible because of the number and heterogeneity of studies. A narrative summary of test accuracy results was provided, reporting test accuracy estimates and presenting forest plots. The economic model constituted a decision tree followed by Markov models for the impact of colorectal and endometrial surveillance, and aspirin prophylaxis with a lifetime time horizon.

RESULTS

The clinical effectiveness search identified 3308 studies; 38 studies of test accuracy were included. (No studies of clinical effectiveness of endometrial cancer surveillance met the inclusion criteria.) Four test accuracy studies compared microsatellite instability with immunohistochemistry. No clear difference in accuracy between immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability was observed. There was some evidence that specificity of immunohistochemistry could be improved with the addition of methylation testing. There was high concordance between immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability. The economic model indicated that all testing strategies, compared with no testing, were cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Immunohistochemistry with MLH1 promoter hypermethylation testing was the most cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £9420 per quality-adjusted life-year. The second most cost-effective strategy was immunohistochemistry testing alone, but incremental analysis produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio exceeding £130,000. Results were robust across all scenario analyses. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from £5690 to £20,740; only removing the benefits of colorectal cancer surveillance produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in excess of the £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. A sensitivity analysis identified the main cost drivers of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as percentage of relatives accepting counselling and prevalence of Lynch syndrome in the population. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, a 0.93 probability that immunohistochemistry with MLH1 promoter hypermethylation testing is cost-effective, compared with no testing.

LIMITATIONS

The systematic review excluded grey literature, studies written in non-English languages and studies for which the reference standard could not be established. Studies were included when Lynch syndrome was diagnosed by genetic confirmation of constitutional variants in the four mismatch repair genes (i.e. MLH1, mutS homologue 2, mutS homologue 6 and postmeiotic segregation increased 2). Variants of uncertain significance were reported as per the studies. There were limitations in the economic model around uncertainty in the model parameters and a lack of modelling of the potential harms of gynaecological surveillance and specific pathway modelling of genetic testing for somatic mismatch repair mutations.

CONCLUSION

The economic model suggests that testing women with endometrial cancer for Lynch syndrome is cost-effective, but that results should be treated with caution because of uncertain model inputs.

FUTURE WORK

Randomised controlled trials could provide evidence on the effect of earlier intervention on outcomes and the balance of benefits and harms of gynaecological cancer surveillance. Follow-up of negative cases through disease registers could be used to determine false negative cases.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019147185.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Development of a Secure Website to Facilitate Information Sharing in Families at High Risk of Bowel Cancer-The Familyweb Study

Simple Summary

Families with an inherited high risk of bowel cancer may struggle to share information about their diagnosis. This means that relatives are not always aware of their increased risk of cancer or able to access screening for the early detection of cancer. Through this study, we aimed to help such families by creating a website where patients could share confidential information with their relatives securely online. Following a survey and telephone interviews with affected individuals, the content of the website was developed to suit the needs of families. Website function was tested with patients to check feasibility and acceptability. Most participants wanted more information to support their adaptation to the diagnosis and help inform their relatives. This study demonstrates how health professionals can improve access to genetic testing and cancer screening in families at high risk of cancer, thus reducing morbidity and mortality.

Abstract

Individuals with pathogenic variants in genes predisposing to bowel cancer are encouraged to share this information within their families. Close relatives at 50% risk can have access to bowel cancer surveillance. However, many relatives remain unaware of their vulnerability or have insufficient information. We investigated the feasibility and acceptability of using a secure website to support information sharing within families at high risk of bowel cancer. Patients (n = 286) answered an anonymous cross-sectional survey, with 14 participating in telephone interviews. They reported that the diagnosis had a profound effect on them and their family relationships, and consequently desired more support from health professionals. Website content was created in response to the preferences of survey and interview participants. Reactions to the website from 12 volunteers were captured through remote usability testing to guide further refinement of the website. Participants welcomed the opportunity to store and share personal information via the website and wanted more information and help informing their relatives about the diagnosis. Important website topics were: healthy lifestyle; genetic testing; and how to talk to children about the diagnosis. A website providing online access to confidential documents was both feasible and acceptable and could translate into increased uptake of cancer surveillance, resulting in lower morbidity and mortality in these families.

Model-Based Re-Examination of the Effectiveness of Tumor/Immunohistochemistry and Direct-to-Sequencing Protocols for Lynch Syndrome Case Finding in Endometrial Cancer

PURPOSE

Despite widespread provision of Lynch syndrome (LS) screening programs, questions remain about the most effective and efficient protocol for LS case finding. The purpose of this study was to explore the performance of the two protocols widely shown to be the most efficient and effective, respectively: immunohistochemical (IHC) staining of tumor and direct-to-sequencing (DtS) in endometrial cancer populations.

METHODS

Simulation models were developed to explore performance of the IHC and DtS protocols, updated to reflect current evidence. Analyses explicitly account for protocol complexity and failure points, as well as decreased sequencing costs. Key outcomes are percent of LS cases identified, total protocol costs and efficiency, and break-even analyses of sequencing costs. All costs are in 2020 US dollars (USD).

RESULTS

Under plausible conditions, the IHC protocol is expected to identify 40%-78% of LS cases and DtS protocol from 49% to 97%. When the key variable success in proceeding to sequencing is fixed for both protocols at 50%, 75%, and 100%, the DtS protocol is 9%, 12%, and 16% better at case finding, respectively, than the IHC protocol. The break-even cost of sequencing is about $488 USD when the outcome is total direct testing protocol costs; it is about $670 USD when the outcome is cost per LS case detected.

CONCLUSION

This study quantifies the plausible differences in the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the two LS case-finding protocols. We demonstrate the large influence of success in proceeding to sequencing and potential impact of decreasing sequencing prices.

Lynch syndrome associated endometrial carcinomas in Western Australia: an analysis of universal screening by mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry

BACKGROUND

In 2016 universal screening with mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry in all newly diagnosed endometrial carcinomas was introduced in Western Australia.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the prevalence of Lynch syndrome associated endometrial carcinomas between 2016 and 2019 with a historical control (2015). Additionally, to compare the number of cases appropriately referred for genetic assessment.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of cases presented at the Western Australia gynecologic oncology tumor board was carried out. The primary outcome was the prevalence of Lynch syndrome associated endometrial carcinomas. A secondary outcome was the number of cases appropriately referred for genetic assessment. The following variables were extracted: date of birth; age at diagnosis; vital status; tumor mismatch repair protein expression status (retained or lost) and if lost, the specific mismatch repair protein deficiency; patients who were referred to a genetic clinic; and family history, if recorded. Data were collected from the clinical databases of the Familial Cancer Program at Genetic Services of Western Australia and WOMEN Center, to determine whether patients were appropriately referred for genetic evaluation and to ascertain the results of genetic testing.

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2019, there were 1040 new endometrial carcinomas. Tumors of 883 (85%) patients underwent mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry compared with 117 of 199 patients (59%) in 2015 (χ² 73.14, p<0.001). Of 883 tumors tested, 242 (27%) showed loss of mismatch repair protein expression. In 2015, 30 (26%) tumors of 117 tested showed loss of mismatch repair protein expression. During the 4 years of universal screening, 13 (1.5%) of 883 patients screened were diagnosed with Lynch syndrome compared with 2 (1.7%) of 117 in 2015 (Fisher's exact test 0.04, p=0.69). In 2015, 11 (37%) of 30 patients with loss of mismatch repair protein expression were not referred for genetic assessment compared with 36 (17%) of 209 patients in the universal screening group (χ² 6.28, p=0.02). No cases of Lynch syndrome were diagnosed in patients aged over 70 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal immunohistochemical screening did not increase the proportion of Lynch syndrome associated endometrial carcinomas identified, although the study was underpowered to detect small differences. There was an improvement in appropriate referrals for genetic assessment.

How Should We Test for Lynch Syndrome? A Review of Current Guidelines and Future Strategies

International guidelines for the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome (LS) recommend molecular screening of colorectal cancers (CRCs) to identify patients for germline mismatch repair (MMR) gene testing. As our understanding of the LS phenotype and diagnostic technologies have advanced, there is a need to review these guidelines and new screening opportunities. We discuss the barriers to implementation of current guidelines, as well as guideline limitations, and highlight new technologies and knowledge that may address these. We also discuss alternative screening strategies to increase the rate of LS diagnoses. In particular, the focus of current guidance on CRCs means that approximately half of Lynch-spectrum tumours occurring in unknown male LS carriers, and only one-third in female LS carriers, will trigger testing for LS. There is increasing pressure to expand guidelines to include molecular screening of endometrial cancers, the most frequent cancer in female LS carriers. Furthermore, we collate the evidence to support MMR deficiency testing of other Lynch-spectrum tumours to screen for LS. However, a reliance on tumour tissue limits preoperative testing and, therefore, diagnosis prior to malignancy. The recent successes of functional assays to detect microsatellite instability or MMR deficiency in non-neoplastic tissues suggest that future diagnostic pipelines could become independent of tumour tissue.

Lynch syndrome for the gynaecologist

KEY CONTENT

Lynch syndrome is an autosomal dominant condition closely associated with colorectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer.Women with Lynch syndrome are at increased risk of both endometrial and ovarian cancer and should be offered personalised counselling regarding family planning, red flag symptoms and risk-reducing strategies.Surveillance for gynaecological cancer in women with Lynch syndrome remains controversial; more robust data are needed to determine its effectiveness.Universal testing for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer is being adopted by centres across Europe and is now recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; thus, gynaecologists must become familiar with testing strategies and their results.Testing strategies involve risk stratification of cancers based on phenotypical features and definitive germline testing.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

To define the pathogenesis of Lynch syndrome and its associated gynaecological cancers.To understand the testing strategies for Lynch syndrome in women with gynaecological cancer.To learn how best to counsel women with Lynch syndrome regarding gynaecological cancer and risk-reducing strategies to enable informed decision-making.

ETHICAL ISSUES

Offering gynaecological surveillance despite a lack of robust evidence for its clinical effectiveness may falsely reassure women and delay risk-reducing hysterectomy.Genetic testing may yield variants of unknown significance with ill-defined clinical implications, which can lead to confusion and anxiety.Genetic testing has implications not only for the individual, but also for the whole family, so expert counselling is crucial.

The proportion of endometrial tumours associated with Lynch syndrome (PETALS): A prospective cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome (LS) predisposes to endometrial cancer (EC), colorectal cancer, and other cancers through inherited pathogenic variants affecting mismatch-repair (MMR) genes. Diagnosing LS in women with EC can reduce subsequent cancer mortality through colonoscopic surveillance and aspirin chemoprevention; it also enables cascade testing of relatives. A growing consensus supports LS screening in EC; however, the expected proportion of test positives, and optimal testing strategy is uncertain. Previous studies from insurance-based healthcare systems were limited by narrow selection criteria, failure to apply reference standard tests consistently, and poor conversion to definitive testing. The aim of this study was to establish the prevalence of LS and the diagnostic accuracy of LS testing strategies in an unselected EC population.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This was a prospective cross-sectional study carried out at a large United Kingdom gynaecological cancer centre between October 2015 and January 2017. Women diagnosed with EC or atypical hyperplasia (AH) were offered LS testing. Tumours underwent MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), microsatellite instability (MSI), and targeted MLH1-methylation testing. Women <50 years, with strong family histories and/or indicative tumour molecular features, underwent MMR germline sequencing. Somatic MMR sequencing was performed when indicative molecular features were unexplained by LS or MLH1-hypermethylation. The main outcome measures were the prevalence of LS in an unselected EC population and the diagnostic accuracy of clinical and tumour testing strategies for risk stratifying women with EC for MMR germline sequencing. In total, 500 women participated in the study; only 2 (<1%) declined. Germline sequencing was indicated and conducted for 136 and 135 women, respectively. A total of 16/500 women (3.2%, 95% CI 1.8% to 5.1%) had LS, and 11 more (2.2%) had MMR variants of uncertain significance. Restricting testing to age <50 years, indicative family history (revised Bethesda guidelines or Amsterdam II criteria) or endometrioid histology alone would have missed 9/16 (56%), 8/13 (62%) or 9/13 (69%), and 5/16 (31%) cases of LS, respectively. In total 132/500 tumours were MMR deficient by IHC of which 83/132 (63%) had MLH1-hypermethylation, and 16/49 (33%) of the remaining patients had LS (16/132 with MMR deficiency, 12%). MMR-IHC with targeted MLH1-methylation testing was more discriminatory for LS than MSI with targeted methylation testing, with 100% versus 56.3% (16/16 versus 9/16) sensitivity (p = 0.016) and equal 97.5% (468/484) specificity; 64% MSI-H and 73% MMR deficient tumours unexplained by LS or MLH1-hypermethylation had somatic MMR mutations. The main limitation of the study was failure to conduct MMR germline sequencing for the whole study population, which means that the sensitivity and specificity of tumour triage strategies for LS detection may be overestimated, although the risk of LS in women with no clinical or tumour predictors is expected to be extremely low.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed that age, family history, and histology are imprecise clinical correlates of LS-EC. IHC outperformed MSI for tumour triage and reliably identified both germline and somatic MMR mutations. The 3.2% proportion of LS-EC is similar to colorectal cancer, supporting unselected screening of EC for LS.

A mismatch in care: results of a United Kingdom-wide patient and clinician survey of gynaecological services for women with Lynch syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To describe the current testing practice, referral pathways and gynaecological services available to women with Lynch syndrome (LS) in the UK.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional nationwide survey of gynaecological oncologists and women with LS.

SETTING

United Kingdom.

METHODS

Gynaecological oncologists were contacted directly. Women with LS were identified from national and regional clinical databases and the patient support group, Lynch syndrome UK.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Gynaecological oncologists were asked to report rates of LS testing and current practice regarding risk-reducing strategies and gynaecological surveillance for women with LS. Women with LS were asked to describe their experiences of gynaecological care.

RESULTS

In total, 41 gynaecological oncologists and 298 women with LS responded to the survey. Of the gynaecological oncologists surveyed, 37% were unfamiliar with any clinical guidelines for the management of LS. Only 29% of gynaecological oncologists supported universal testing of endometrial cancer for LS; one centre routinely performed such testing. In all, 83% said they perform risk-reducing gynaecological surgery and 43% were aware of a local gynaecological surveillance service for women with LS. Of women with LS, most had undergone a hysterectomy (n = 191/64.1%), most frequently to reduce their gynaecological cancer risk (n = 86/45%). A total of 10% were initially referred for LS testing by their gynaecologist and 55% of those eligible regularly attended gynaecological surveillance; however, 62% wanted more regular surveillance. Regional variation was evident across all standards of care.

CONCLUSIONS

There is widespread variation in the services offered to women with LS in the UK. As a community, gynaecological oncologists should move towards a nationally agreed provision of services.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

A mismatch in care for mismatch repair. Survey finds significant variation in gynaecological care for #Lynchsyndrome in the UK.

Feasibility of Gynaecologist Led Lynch Syndrome Testing in Women with Endometrial Cancer

A barrier to Lynch syndrome testing is the need for prior genetic counselling, a resource demanding process for both patients and healthcare services. We explored the impact of gynaecologist led Lynch syndrome testing in women with endometrial cancer. Women were approached before surgery, on the day of surgery or during routine follow up. Lynch syndrome testing was offered irrespective of age, family history or tumour characteristics. Women's reasons for being tested were explored using the Motivations and Concerns for GeNEtic Testing (MACGNET) instrument. The short form State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6) was used to measure anxiety levels. Only 3/305 women declined Lynch syndrome testing. In total, 175/220 completed MACGNET and STAI-6 psychological instruments. The consent process took an average of 7min 36sec (SD 5min 16sec) to complete. The point of care at which consent was taken (before, day of surgery, during follow up) did not influence motivation for Lynch syndrome testing. Anxiety levels were significantly lower when women were consented during follow up (mean reversed STAI-6 score 32 vs 42, p = 0.001). Anxiety levels were not affected by familial cancer history (p = 0.41). Gynaecologist led Lynch syndrome testing is feasible and may even be desirable in endometrial cancer, especially when offered during routine follow up.

Cost-Effectiveness of the Manchester Approach to Identifying Lynch Syndrome in Women with Endometrial Cancer

Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary cancer syndrome responsible for 3% of all endometrial cancer and 5% in those aged under 70 years. It is unclear whether universal testing for LS in endometrial cancer patients would be cost-effective. The Manchester approach to identifying LS in endometrial cancer patients uses immunohistochemistry (IHC) to detect mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency, incorporates testing for MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, and incorporates genetic testing for pathogenic MMR variants. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Manchester approach on the basis of primary research data from clinical practice in Manchester. The Proportion of Endometrial Tumours Associated with Lynch Syndrome (PETALS) study informed estimates of diagnostic performances for a number of different strategies. A recent microcosting study was adapted and was used to estimate diagnostic costs. A Markov model was used to predict long-term costs and health outcomes (measured in quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) for individuals and their relatives. Bootstrapping and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were used to estimate the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness. The Manchester approach dominated other reflex testing strategies when considering diagnostic costs and Lynch syndrome cases identified. When considering long-term costs and QALYs the Manchester approach was the optimal strategy, costing £5459 per QALY gained (compared to thresholds of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY commonly used in the National Health Service (NHS)). Cost-effectiveness is not an argument for restricting testing to younger patients or those with a strong family history. Universal testing for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer patients is expected to be cost-effective in the U.K. (NHS), and the Manchester approach is expected to be the optimal testing strategy.