HNPCC: an uncommon but important diagnosis

Prevalence and Penetrance of Major Genes and Polygenes for Colorectal Cancer

Background: Although high-risk mutations in identified major susceptibility genes (DNA mismatch repair genes and MUTYH) account for some familial aggregation of colorectal cancer, their population prevalence and the causes of the remaining familial aggregation are not known.Methods: We studied the families of 5,744 colorectal cancer cases (probands) recruited from population cancer registries in the United States, Canada, and Australia and screened probands for mutations in mismatch repair genes and MUTYH We conducted modified segregation analyses using the cancer history of first-degree relatives, conditional on the proband's age at diagnosis. We estimated the prevalence of mutations in the identified genes, the prevalence of HR for unidentified major gene mutations, and the variance of the residual polygenic component.Results: We estimated that 1 in 279 of the population carry mutations in mismatch repair genes (MLH1 = 1 in 1,946, MSH2 = 1 in 2,841, MSH6 = 1 in 758, PMS2 = 1 in 714), 1 in 45 carry mutations in MUTYH, and 1 in 504 carry mutations associated with an average 31-fold increased risk of colorectal cancer in unidentified major genes. The estimated polygenic variance was reduced by 30% to 50% after allowing for unidentified major genes and decreased from 3.3 for age <40 years to 0.5 for age ≥70 years (equivalent to sibling relative risks of 5.1 to 1.3, respectively).Conclusions: Unidentified major genes might explain one third to one half of the missing heritability of colorectal cancer.Impact: Our findings could aid gene discovery and development of better colorectal cancer risk prediction models. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(3); 404-12. ©2016 AACR.

Hereditary cancer syndromes as model systems for chemopreventive agent development

Research in chemoprevention has undergone a shift in emphasis for pragmatic reasons from large, phase III randomized studies to earlier phase studies focused on safety, mechanisms, and utilization of surrogate endpoints such as biomarkers instead of cancer incidence. This transition permits trials to be conducted in smaller populations and at substantially reduced costs while still yielding valuable information. This article will summarize some of the current chemoprevention challenges and the justification for the use of animal models to facilitate identification and testing of chemopreventive agents as illustrated though four inherited cancer syndromes. Preclinical models of inherited cancer syndromes serve as prototypical systems in which chemopreventive agents can be developed for ultimate application to both the sporadic and inherited cancer settings.

Criteria and prediction models for mismatch repair gene mutations: a review

One of the strongest predictors of colorectal cancer risk is carrying a germline mutation in a DNA mismatch repair (MMR) gene. Once identified, mutation carriers can be recommended for intensive screening that will substantially reduce their high colorectal cancer risk. Conversely, the relatives of carriers identified as non-carriers can be relieved of the burden of intensive screening. Criteria and prediction models that identify likely mutation carriers are needed for cost-effective, targeted, germline testing for MMR gene mutation. We reviewed 12 criteria/guidelines and 8 prediction models (Leiden, Amsterdam-plus, Amsterdam-alternative, MMRpro, PREMM1,2,6, MMRpredict, Associazione Italiana per lo studio della Familiarità ed Ereditarietà dei tumori Gastrointestinali (AIFEG) and the Myriad Genetics Prevalence table) for identifying mutation carriers. While criteria are only used to identify individuals with colorectal cancer (yes/no for screening followed by germline testing), all prediction models except MMRpredict and Myriad tables can predict the probability of carrying mutations for individuals with or without colorectal cancer. We conducted a meta-analysis of the discrimination performance of 17 studies that validated the prediction models. The pooled estimate for the area under curve was 0.80 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.88) for MMRpro, 0.81 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.88) for MMRpredict, 0.84 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.88) for PREMM, and 0.85 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.91) for Leiden model. Given the high degree of overlap in the CIs, we cannot state that one model has a higher discrimination than any of the others. Overall, the existing statistical models have been shown to be sensitive and specific (at a 5% cut-off) in predicting MMR gene mutation carriers. Future models may need to: provide prediction of PMS2 mutations, take into account a wider range of Lynch syndrome-associated cancers when assessing family history, and be applicable to all people irrespective of any cancer diagnosis.

The incidence of Lynch syndrome

Lynch syndrome (LS) here is defined as carriership of a deleterious mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutation. By screening for MMR gene mutations in unselected colorectal or endometrial cancer patients, it was found that the prevalence of LS in colorectal and endometrial cancer patients is 1-3%. On extrapolation to the entire population, the incidence of LS is between 1:2000 and 1:660. As all screening methods are less than 100% sensitive, the above figures are underestimates.

Hereditary breast/ovarian and colorectal cancer genetics knowledge in a national sample of US physicians

BACKGROUND

Clinically relevant genetics knowledge is essential for appropriate assessment and management of inherited cancer risk, and for effective communication with patients. This national physician survey assessed knowledge regarding basic cancer genetics concepts early in the process of introduction of predictive genetic testing for breast/ovarian and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndromes.

METHODS

A stratified random sample was selected from the American Medical Association Masterfile of all licensed physicians. In total, 1251 physicians (820 in primary care, 431 in selected subspecialties) responded to a 15 minute questionnaire (response rate 71%) in 1999-2000. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify demographic and practice characteristics associated with accurate response to three knowledge questions.

RESULTS

Of the study population, 37.5% was aware of paternal inheritance of BRCA1/2 mutations, and 33.8% recognised that these mutations occur in <10% of breast cancer patients. Only 13.1% accurately identified HNPCC gene penetrance as >or=50%. Obstetrics/gynaecology physicians, oncologists, and general surgeons were significantly more likely than general and family practitioners to respond accurately to the breast/ovarian questions, as were gastroenterologists to the HNPCC question.

CONCLUSIONS

These nationally representative data indicate limited physician knowledge about key cancer genetics concepts in 1999-2000, particularly among general primary care physicians. Specialists were more knowledgeable about syndromes they might treat or refer elsewhere. Recent dissemination of practice guidelines and continued expansion of relevant clinical literature may enhance knowledge over time. In addition to educational efforts to assist physicians with the growing knowledge base, more research is needed to characterise the organisational changes required within the healthcare system to provide effective cancer genetics services.

Microsatellite Instability and DNA Mismatch Repair Deficiency Testing in Hereditary and Sporadic Gastrointestinal Cancers

The reference cancers associated with DNA mismatch repair (MMR)deficiency are the adenocarcinomas of patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, also known as Lynch syndrome. Sporadic gastrointestinal (GI) carcinomas, most commonly colorectal and gastric carcinomas, may also be associated with deficiencies of DNA mismatch repair. Deficiency in cellular MMR leads to wide-spread mutagenesis and neoplastic development and progression. An important diagnostic feature of MMR-deficient tumors is the high rate of mutations that accumulate in repetitive nucleotide regions, and these mutations are known as microsatellite instability(MSI). A standard panel of markers to test for MSI in tumors has been recommended and efficiently separates tumors into those with high, low, or no microsatellite instability (MSI-H, MSI-L, or MSS). Tumors characterized by MSI-H characteristically show loss of one of the main DNA MMR proteins, mLH1 or MSH2, and rarely MSH6 and PMS2, detected by immunohistochemistry (IHC). The combination of MSI testing and IHC for MMR proteins in tumors tissues is used to identify underlying DNA MMR deficiency andis clinically relevant screen patients who might have hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer for DNA repair gene germline testing. Increasing evidence demonstrates that tumors with a positive MSI status have lower lymph node metastases burden, and these patients have an overall improved survival, suggesting that the MSI and MMR status may contribute to decision making regarding treatment approaches. Updated guidelines for MSI and IHC for DNAMMR testing, and the biological and potential clinical implications of MMR deficiency and microsatellite instability in GI polyps and cancers are reviewed.

An economic viewpoint on alternative strategies for identifying persons with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer

PURPOSE

There is uncertainty regarding the optimal strategy for identifying mutation carriers among those with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC).

METHODS

We used decision analysis to compare the cost-effectiveness of 4 strategies among those with newly diagnosed colon cancer: (1) clinical and family history followed by microsatellite instability testing and germline testing (Bethesda guidelines); (2) universal microsatellite instability testing; (3) germline testing of those who meet clinical and family history criteria; and (4) universal germline testing.

RESULTS

The added cost per year of life saved (YLS) for each strategy was as follows: (1) 11,865 US dollars/YLS, (2) 35,617 US dollars/YLS, (3) 49,702 US dollars/YLS, and (4) 267,548 US dollars/YLS.

CONCLUSIONS

The Bethesda guidelines are the most cost-effectiveness approach to screen persons for HNPCC.

Genetic testing among high-risk individuals in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer

Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is frequently associated with constitutional mutations in a class of genes involved in DNA mismatch repair. We identified 32 kindreds, with germline mutations in one of three genes hMSH2, hMLH1 or hMSH6. In this study, we purposed to evaluate how many high-risk individuals in each family underwent genetic testing: moreover, we assessed how many mutation-positive unaffected individuals accepted colonoscopic surveillance and the main findings of the recommended follow-up. Families were identified through a population-based registry, or referred from other centres. Members of the families were invited for an education session with two members of the staff. When a kindred was consistent with HNPCC, neoplastic tissues were examined for microsatellite instability (MSI) and immunohistochemical expression of MSH2, MLH1 and MSH6 proteins. Moreover, constitutional mutations were searched by SSCP or direct sequencing of the whole genomic region. Of the 164 subjects assessed by genetic testing, 89 were gene carriers (66 affected - that is, with HNPCC-related cancer diagnosis - and 23 unaffected) and 75 tested negative. Among the 23 unaffected gene carriers, 18 (78.3%) underwent colonoscopy and four declined. On a total of 292 first degree at risk of cancer, 194 (66.4%) did not undergo genetic testing. The main reasons for this were: (a) difficulty to reach family members at risk, (b) lack of collaboration, (c) lack of interest in preventive medicine or 'fatalistic' attitude towards cancer occurrence. The number of colorectal lesions detected at endoscopy in gene carriers was significantly (P<0.01) higher than in controls (noncarriers). We conclude that a large fraction of high-risk individuals in mutation-positive HNPCC families does not undergo genetic testing, despite the benefits of molecular screening and endoscopic surveillance. This clearly indicates that there are still barriers to genetic testing in HNPCC, and that we are unable to provide adequate protection against cancer development in these families.

Family history of colon cancer: what does it mean and how is it useful?

BACKGROUND

Family history of colon cancer can be deconstructed into causal and noncausal explanations, which include genetic factors, environmental factors, gene-environment interactions, misclassification, and differences in screening.

METHODS

We investigated some of these causal and noncausal explanations by using data from a case-control study of colon cancer conducted among African Americans and whites in North Carolina. We examined the relationship between family history and polymorphisms in four genes (N-acetyltransferase 1 and 2 [NAT1, NAT2], methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase, and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma [PPARG]), environmental risk factors, the joint distributions of these genes and environmental risk factors, and the prevalence of colon cancer screening.

RESULTS

Participants with one or more first-degree relatives with colon cancer showed a slightly higher prevalence of at-risk genotypes for each locus, but results were statistically significant only for NAT2. Participants with a family history showed a higher prevalence of at-risk combinations of genotypes and environmental risk factors (NAT2 and well-done red meat consumption; PPARG and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication use). The sensitivity and predictive value of family history for identifying persons with at-risk genotypes or environmental risk factors was low. History of cancer screening was similar in those with and without a family history.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that family history of colon cancer may represent aggregation of some genetic polymorphisms and environmental risk factors. Although it is premature to use family history as a screening tool when testing for genetic polymorphisms, further research is needed to identify additional genes and environmental factors that may be associated with family history.