Search

Funder: Victorian Cancer Agency, Funder: NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Funder: Cancer Research UK, Funder: Cancer Council Tasmania, Funder: Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Funder: Cancer Australia, Funder: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Funder: Fundación Científica de la Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer, Funder: Cancer Council South Australia, Funder: Swedish Cancer Society, Funder: NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Funder: Institut Català de la Salut, Funder: Cancer Council Victoria, Funder: Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Funder: National Institutes of Health, BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is a rare familial cancer syndrome caused by pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2, that cause predisposition to various cancers, predominantly colorectal and endometrial cancer. Data are emerging that pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes increase the risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer. The IMPACT study is prospectively assessing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in men with germline mismatch repair pathogenic variants. Here, we report the usefulness of PSA screening, prostate cancer incidence, and tumour characteristics after the first screening round in men with and without these germline pathogenic variants. METHODS: The IMPACT study is an international, prospective study. Men aged 40-69 years without a previous prostate cancer diagnosis and with a known germline pathogenic variant in the MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 gene, and age-matched male controls who tested negative for a familial pathogenic variant in these genes were recruited from 34 genetic and urology clinics in eight countries, and underwent a baseline PSA screening. Men who had a PSA level higher than 3·0 ng/mL were offered a transrectal, ultrasound-guided, prostate biopsy and a histopathological analysis was done. All participants are undergoing a minimum of 5 years' annual screening. The primary endpoint was to determine the incidence, stage, and pathology of screening-detected prostate cancer in carriers of pathogenic variants compared with non-carrier controls. We used Fisher's exact test to compare the number of cases, cancer incidence, and positive predictive values of the PSA cutoff and biopsy between carriers and non-carriers and the differences between disease types (ie, cancer vs no cancer, clinically significant cancer vs no cancer). We assessed screening outcomes and tumour characteristics by pathogenic variant status. Here we present results from the first round of PSA screening in the IMPACT study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00261456, and is now closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2012, and March 1, 2020, 828 men were recruited (644 carriers of mismatch repair pathogenic variants [204 carriers of MLH1, 305 carriers of MSH2, and 135 carriers of MSH6] and 184 non-carrier controls [65 non-carriers of MLH1, 76 non-carriers of MSH2, and 43 non-carriers of MSH6]), and in order to boost the sample size for the non-carrier control groups, we randomly selected 134 non-carriers from the BRCA1 and BRCA2 cohort of the IMPACT study, who were included in all three non-carrier cohorts. Men were predominantly of European ancestry (899 [93%] of 953 with available data), with a mean age of 52·8 years (SD 8·3). Within the first screening round, 56 (6%) men had a PSA concentration of more than 3·0 ng/mL and 35 (4%) biopsies were done. The overall incidence of prostate cancer was 1·9% (18 of 962; 95% CI 1·1-2·9). The incidence among MSH2 carriers was 4·3% (13 of 305; 95% CI 2·3-7·2), MSH2 non-carrier controls was 0·5% (one of 210; 0·0-2·6), MSH6 carriers was 3·0% (four of 135; 0·8-7·4), and none were detected among the MLH1 carriers, MLH1 non-carrier controls, and MSH6 non-carrier controls. Prostate cancer incidence, using a PSA threshold of higher than 3·0 ng/mL, was higher in MSH2 carriers than in MSH2 non-carrier controls (4·3% vs 0·5%; p=0·011) and MSH6 carriers than MSH6 non-carrier controls (3·0% vs 0%; p=0·034). The overall positive predictive value of biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 51·4% (95% CI 34·0-68·6), and the overall positive predictive value of a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 32·1% (20·3-46·0). INTERPRETATION: After the first screening round, carriers of MSH2 and MSH6 pathogenic variants had a higher incidence of prostate cancer compared with age-matched non-carrier controls. These findings support the use of targeted PSA screening in these men to identify those with clinically significant prostate cancer. Further annual screening rounds will need to confirm these findings. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research support to Biomedical Research Centres (The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust; Oxford; Manchester and the Cambridge Clinical Research Centre), Mr and Mrs Jack Baker, the Cancer Council of Tasmania, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Cancer Council of Victoria, Cancer Council of South Australia, the Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), the Institut Català de la Salut, Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute, Swedish Cancer Society, General Hospital in Malmö Foundation for Combating Cancer.

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.

Every child inherits two copies of their genes, one from each of their biological parents, and in this way genes are passed on to the next generation. Often people do not think about their genes, until they have a child born with a recessive condition. When they then ask the question: ‘Could we have known before that we are carrier of this disorder?’, the theoretical answer is ‘Yes’, since they would have been carriers throughout their lives. However, testing for carrier status often is done only after the birth of an affected infant, potentially followed by testing relatives. Medical issues related to genetic factors being passed on are preferably discussed before pregnancy, since the impact of inherited disorders to the lives of parents and their family may be enormous. For some couples, the risk for each child to have an inherited disease is 25%, 50% or, though rarely, even 100%. It is therefore important that time is available for providing information about a possible genetic risk to couples planning a pregnancy. This chapter will discuss (1) genetic health care in relation to preconception care (goal, autonomy, informed decision-making); (2) family history and patterns of inheritance, especially recessive conditions; and (3) techniques that are used in the genetic laboratories in 2019 (more or less targeted, from simple high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)/electrophoresis for HbP to expanded carrier screening using sequencing techniques or analyses as in whole exome sequencing (WES) for consanguineous couples).

Purpose\ud \ud There are no internationally agreed upon clinical guidelines as to which women with gynecological cancer would benefit from Lynch syndrome screening or how best to manage the risk of gynecological cancer in women with Lynch syndrome. The Manchester International Consensus Group was convened in April 2017 to address this unmet need. The aim of the Group was to develop clear and comprehensive clinical guidance regarding the management of the gynecological sequelae of Lynch syndrome based on existing evidence and expert opinion from medical professionals and patients.\ud \ud Methods\ud \ud Stakeholders from Europe and North America worked together over a two-day workshop to achieve consensus on best practice.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud Guidance was developed in four key areas: (1) whether women with gynecological cancer should be screened for Lynch syndrome and (2) how this should be done, (3) whether there was a role for gynecological surveillance in women at risk of Lynch syndrome, and (4) what preventive measures should be recommended for women with Lynch syndrome to reduce their risk of gynecological cancer.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud This document provides comprehensive clinical guidance that can be referenced by both patients and clinicians so that women with Lynch syndrome can expect and receive appropriate standards of care.