Value of immunohistochemical detection of DNA mismatch repair proteins in predicting germline mutation in hereditary colorectal neoplasms

Mismatch Repair Status Is a Predictive Factor of Tumour Response to 5-Fluorouracil and Irinotecan Chemotherapy in Patients with Advanced Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To determine the association between DNA mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression and response to chemotherapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

Using immunohistochemistry, tumour expression of 2 MMR genes, hMLH1 and hMSH2, was assessed in 86 patients with advanced CRC, who were treated with either irinotecan alone or in combination with 5-flurouracil/folinic acid.

RESULTS

Weak/negative staining in the tumours was associated with the presence of metastases at diagnosis (p = 0.026) and with the time for metastases to appear (p = 0.0001). An objective response to treatment was observed in 32/56 (57%) patients who had tumours with negative/weak MMR protein expression (p = 0.001), compared to 17% of patients with tumours with moderate/strong expression. Those who had tumours with weak/absent expression of either hMLH1 or hMSH2 who received the combination therapy were more likely to show an objective response (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Advanced CRC patients whose tumours have deficient MMR demonstrate a shorter time to metastasis than those with normal hMLH1/hMSH2 expression. Patients with MMR-deficient tumours are also more likely to benefit from combination chemotherapy (irinotecan plus 5-flurouracil/folinic acid).

ASCO/SSO review of current role of risk-reducing surgery in common hereditary cancer syndromes

BACKGROUND

A significant portion of cancers are accounted for by a heritable component, which has increasingly been linked to mutations in specific genes. Clinical interventions have been formulated for mutation carriers within affected families. The primary interventions for mutation carriers of highly penetrant syndromes are surgical.

METHODS

The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the Society of Surgical Oncology formed a task force charged with presenting an educational symposium on surgical management of hereditary cancer syndromes at annual society meetings, and this resulted in a position paper on this topic. The content of both the symposium and the position paper was developed as a consensus statement.

RESULTS

This article addresses hereditary breast, colorectal, ovarian/endometrial, and multiple endocrine neoplasias. A brief introduction on the genetics and natural history of each disease is provided, followed by detailed descriptions of modern surgical approaches, clinical and genetic indications, timing of prophylactic surgery, and the efficacy of surgery (when known). Although several recent reviews have addressed the role of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, this article focuses on the issues surrounding surgical technique, timing, and indications for surgical prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk-reducing surgical treatment of hereditary cancer is a complex undertaking. It requires a clear understanding of the natural history of the disease, realistic appreciation of the potential benefits and risks of these procedures in potentially otherwise healthy individuals, and the long-term sequelae of such interventions, as well as the individual patient's and family's perceptions of surgical risk and anticipated benefit.

ASCO/SSO review of current role of risk-reducing surgery in common hereditary cancer syndromes

Although the etiology of solid cancers is multifactorial, with environmental and genetic factors playing a variable role, a significant portion of the burden of cancer is accounted for by a heritable component. Increasingly, the heritable component of cancer predispositions has been linked to mutations in specific genes, and clinical interventions have been formulated for mutation carriers within affected families. The primary interventions for mutations carriers for highly penetrant syndromes such as multiple endocrine neoplasias, familial adenomatous polyposis, hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer, and hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes are primarily surgical. For that reason, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) have undertaken an educational effort within the oncology community. A joint ASCO/SSO Task Force was charged with presenting an educational symposium on the surgical management of hereditary cancer syndromes at the annual ASCO and SSO meetings, resulting in an educational position article on this topic. Both the content of the symposium and the article were developed as a consensus statement by the Task Force, with the intent of summarizing the current standard of care. This article is divided into four sections addressing breast, colorectal, ovarian and endometrial cancers, and multiple endocrine neoplasia. For each, a brief introduction on the genetics and natural history of the disease is provided, followed by a detailed description of modern surgical approaches, including a description of the clinical and genetic indications and timing of prophylactic surgery, and the efficacy of prophylactic surgery when known. Although a number of recent reviews have addressed the role of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility, including the richly illustrated Cancer Genetics and Cancer Predisposition Testing curriculum by the ASCO Cancer Genetics Working Group (available through http://www.asco.org), this article focuses on the issues surrounding the why, how, and when of surgical prophylaxis for inherited forms of cancer. This is a complex process, which requires a clear understanding of the natural history of the disease and variance of penetrance, a realistic appreciation of the potential benefit and risk of a risk-reducing procedure in a potentially otherwise healthy individual, the long-term sequelae of such surgical intervention, as well as the individual patient and family's perception of surgical risk and anticipated benefit.

Prediction of germline mutations and cancer risk in the Lynch syndrome

CONTEXT

Identifying families at high risk for the Lynch syndrome (ie, hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) is critical for both genetic counseling and cancer prevention. Current clinical guidelines are effective but limited by applicability and cost.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a genetic counseling and risk prediction tool that estimates the probability of carrying a deleterious mutation in mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 and the probability of developing colorectal or endometrial cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

External validation of the MMRpro model was conducted on 279 individuals from 226 clinic-based families in the United States, Canada, and Australia (referred between 1993-2005) by comparing model predictions with results of highly sensitive germline mutation detection techniques. MMRpro models the autosomal dominant inheritance of mismatch repair mutations, with parameters based on meta-analyses of the penetrance and prevalence of mutations and of the predictive values of tumor characteristics. The model's prediction is tailored to each individual's detailed family history information on colorectal and endometrial cancer and to tumor characteristics including microsatellite instability.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Ability of MMRpro to correctly predict mutation carrier status, as measured by operating characteristics, calibration, and overall accuracy.

RESULTS

In the independent validation, MMRpro provided a concordance index of 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.88) and a ratio of observed to predicted cases of 0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.05). This results in higher accuracy than existing alternatives and current clinical guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

MMRpro is a broadly applicable, accurate prediction model that can contribute to current screening and genetic counseling practices in a high-risk population. It is more sensitive and more specific than existing clinical guidelines for identifying individuals who may benefit from MMR germline testing. It is applicable to individuals for whom tumor samples are not available and to individuals in whom germline testing finds no mutation.

Does Biomolecular Characterization of Stage II/III Colorectal Cancer Have Any Prognostic Value?

As new improvements in the treatment of colorectal cancer have become available, it has become important to understand the benefits of new therapies or the deleterious effects stemming from the increased risk of toxicity. In particular, a more rational approach to adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage II/III disease should be defined by understanding which patients have a higher recurrence risk. Many studies have investigated several molecular markers, but none has been definitively associated with patient outcome. We present a review of studies that have evaluated the immunohistochemical correlation between expression of some biomarkers, such as thymidylate synthase, p53, Ki-67, Bcl-2, and microsatellite instability status expressed by Mut-L homologue 1 and Mut-S homologue 2 proteins, and the prognosis of patients with stage II/III colorectal cancer. We have evaluated studies in which > or = 100 patients were involved in an effort to ensure a representative study group. The only biomarker likely to have a prognostic value is microsatellite instability status, which correlated with a better prognosis.

Tumours from MSH2 mutation carriers show loss of MSH2 expression but many tumours from MLH1 mutation carriers exhibit weak positive MLH1 staining

Microsatellite analysis (MSA) in tumour tissue is useful for pre-selection of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) patients for mutation screening, but is time-consuming and cost-intensive. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for expression of MLH1 and MSH2 proteins is simple, fast, and indicates the affected gene. IHC has therefore been proposed as an alternative pre-screening method. However, some authors report a lower sensitivity of IHC compared with MSA. The present study reports IHC results for MSH2 and MLH1 performed in 82 tumours with high microsatellite instability (MSI-H) from 81 carriers of pathogenic mutations in MSH2 or MLH1. One hundred per cent (38/38) of the tumours from MSH2 mutation carriers showed loss of MSH2 staining; in all cases, the affected MSH2 gene was predicted correctly by IHC. Complete loss of MLH1 expression was observed in 66% (29/44) of MLH1 mutation carriers. Weak positive MLH1 staining was observed in 14 (32%) cases and, in one case, normal MLH1 staining was seen. The pathologist was aware of the weak staining pattern as an indicator of an MLH1 mutation; 98% of the MLH1 mutations were predicted correctly. To evaluate whether weak positive MLH1 staining is observed more often with in-frame or missense mutations, IHC data from 23 MSI-H tumours from carriers of unspecified variants were added and mutations were grouped into truncating mutations, large non-truncating deletions, and small non-truncating mutations. Weak MLH1 staining was observed in all three categories and it is postulated that other factors, such as mutation of the second allele, also influence protein expression. In conclusion, IHC can be regarded as a very useful method for selecting HNPCC patients for mutation analysis, as long as it is interpreted by an experienced pathologist. The high specificity of IHC in terms of indicating the affected gene is useful for evaluating unspecified variants. However, the staining pattern does not predict whether the underlying germ-line mutation is truncating or not.

Routine testing for mismatch repair deficiency in sporadic colorectal cancer is justified

This study prospectively examines the accuracy of immunohistochemical staining in the identification of mismatch repair defective (MMRD) colorectal cancer in routine clinical practice. The potential impact of this information on decisions regarding adjuvant treatment and germline testing were quantified. A consecutive series of fresh tissue (836 cancers) was obtained from 786 individuals undergoing curative surgery for colorectal cancer at one institution. As part of normal practice, each tumour was screened for the expression of MLH1 and MSH2 by immunohistochemical staining (IHC) and relevant clinicopathological details were documented. Microsatellite instability (MSI) was assessed using standard markers. Overall, 108 (13%) tumours showed loss of staining for either MLH1 (92 tumours) or MSH2 (16 tumours). The positive predictive value of mismatch repair IHC when used alone in the detection of MSI tumours was 88%, and the negative predictive value was 97%. Specificity and positive predictive value were improved by correlation with microsatellite status. Tumour stage (HR 3.5, 95% CI 2.0-6.0), vascular space invasion (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.0) and mismatch repair deficiency (HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.05-0.87) were independent prognostic factors in stages II and III disease. Screening by mismatch repair IHC could reasonably have been expected to prevent ineffective treatment in 3.6% of stage II and 7.6% of stage III patients. The frequency of germline mismatch repair mutations was 0.8%, representing six unsuspected hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) cases. Routine screening of colorectal cancers by mismatch repair IHC identifies individuals at low risk of relapse, and can prevent unnecessary adjuvant treatments in a significant number of individuals. Abnormal immunohistochemistry should be confirmed by microsatellite testing to ensure that false-positive results do not adversely impact on treatment decisions.

Pediatric renal cell carcinomas with Xp11.2 rearrangements are immunoreactive for hMLH1 and hMSH2 proteins

Alveolar soft part sarcoma and pediatric renal cell carcinoma share a similar chromosomal abnormality, t(X;17)(p11.2;q25). Recently, it has been suggested that the inactivation of DNA mismatch repair genes hMLH1 and hMSH2 may play an additional role in the pathogenesis of alveolar soft part sarcoma. Immunohistochemical expression of the proteins hMLH1 and hMSH2 is indicative of the activation status of the corresponding genes. We performed immunohistochemistry for hMLH1 and hMSH2 in 4 cases of pediatric renal cell carcinomas with Xp11.2 rearrangements. All cases showed nuclear immunoreactivity for both proteins, although the staining was patchy. Our study demonstrates that inactivation of the DNA mismatch repair genes hMLH1 and hMSH2 does not appear to play a role in the tumorigenesis of pediatric renal cell carcinomas with Xp11.2 rearrangements.