Search

Female Lynch syndrome (LS) carriers have an increased risk to develop endometrial and ovarian cancer. In the Netherlands, carriers are therefore advised annual gynecological surveillance and eventually, risk-reducing surgery. Global gynecological LS surveillance guidelines are scarce and based on limited evidence. These are, however, warranted to offer accurate surveillance. To provide more insight into surveillance outcomes, this study assessed outcomes of gynecological surveillance and risk-reducing surgery in 164 LS carriers diagnosed in our center, with a median follow-up of 5.6 years per carrier. Although most surveillance visits happened within an advised timeframe, we observed large variability in how gynecological surveillance visits were performed. This finding stresses the need for development of clear and evidence-based guidelines. Endometrial cancers identified at surveillance were all found in early stage, mostly symptomatic, questioning surveillance benefit. Large, prospective studies should assess to what extent current LS surveillance programs contribute to early detection of gynecological tumors. Lynch syndrome (LS) is caused by pathogenic germline variants in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes, predisposing female carriers for endometrial cancer (EC) and ovarian cancer (OC). Since gynecological LS surveillance guidelines are based on little evidence, we assessed its outcomes. Data regarding gynecological tumors, surveillance, and (risk-reducing) surgery were collected from female LS carriers diagnosed in our center since 1993. Of 505 female carriers, 104 had a gynecological malignancy prior to genetic LS diagnosis. Of 264 carriers eligible for gynecological management, 164 carriers gave informed consent and had available surveillance data: 38 MLH1, 25 MSH2, 82 MSH6, and 19 PMS2 carriers (median follow-up 5.6 years). Surveillance intervals were within advised time in >80%. Transvaginal ultrasound, endometrial sampling, and CA125 measurements were perfo

Lynch syndrome (LS) patients are at high risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). Phenotypic variability might in part be explained by common susceptibility loci identified in Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS). Previous studies focused mostly on MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 carriers, with conflicting results. We aimed to determine the role of GWAS SNPs in PMS2 mutation carriers. A cohort study was performed in 507 PMS2 carriers (124 CRC cases), genotyped for 24 GWAS SNPs, including SNPs at 11q23.1 and 8q23.3. Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using a weighted Cox regression analysis to correct for ascertainment bias. Discrimination was assessed with a concordance statistic in a bootstrap cross-validation procedure. Individual SNPs only had non-significant associations with CRC occurrence with HRs lower than 2, although male carriers of allele A at rs1321311 (6p21.31) may have increased risk of CRC (HR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.2–3.0). A polygenic risk score (PRS) based on 24 HRs had an HR of 2.6 (95% CI 1.5–4.6) for the highest compared to the lowest quartile, but had no discriminative ability (c statistic 0.52). Previously suggested SNPs do not modify CRC risk in PMS2 carriers. Future large studies are needed for improved risk stratification among Lynch syndrome patients.

Since the 1980s the genetic cause of many hereditary tumor syndromes has been elucidated. As a consequence, carriers of a deleterious mutation in these genes may opt for prenatal diagnoses (PND). We studied the uptake of prenatal diagnosis for five hereditary cancer syndromes in the Netherlands. Uptake for retinoblastoma (Rb) was compared with uptake for Von Hippel–Lindau disease (VHL), Li–Fraumeni syndrome (LFS), familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), and hereditary breast ovarian cancer (HBOC). A questionnaire was completed by all nine DNA-diagnostic laboratories assessing the number of independent mutation-positive families identified from the start of diagnostic testing until May 2013, and the number of PNDs performed for these syndromes within these families. Of 187 families with a known Rb-gene mutation, 22 had performed PND (11.8%), this was significantly higher than uptake for FAP (1.6%) and HBOC (<0.2%). For VHL (6.5%) and LFS (4.9%) the difference was not statistically significant. PND for Rb started 3 years after introduction of diagnostic DNA testing and remained stable over the years. For the other cancer syndromes PND started 10–15 years after the introduction and uptake for PND showed an increase after 2009. We conclude that uptake of PND for Rb was significantly higher than for FAP and HBOC, but not different from VHL and LFS. Early onset, high penetrance, lack of preventive surgery and perceived burden of disease may explain these differences.

Many suspected Lynch Syndrome (sLS) patients who lack mismatch repair (MMR) germline gene variants and MLH1 or MSH2 hypermethylation are currently explained by somatic MMR gene variants or, occasionally, by germline POLE variants. To further investigate unexplained sLS patients, we analyzed leukocyte and tumor DNA of 62 sLS patients using gene panel sequencing including the POLE, POLD1 and MMR genes. Forty tumors showed either one, two or more somatic MMR variants predicted to affect function. Nine sLS tumors showed a likely ultramutated phenotype and were found to carry germline (n=2) or somatic variants (n=7) in the POLE/POLD1 exonuclease domain (EDM). Six of these POLE/POLD1-EDM mutated tumors also carried somatic MMR variants. Our findings suggest that faulty proofreading may result in loss of MMR and thereby in microsatellite instability.

Background and Aims Lynch Syndrome (LS) is caused by pathogenic germline variants in one of the mismatch repair (MMR) genes. However, up to 60% of MMR-deficient colorectal cancer cases are categorized as suspected Lynch Syndrome (sLS) because no pathogenic MMR germline variant can be identified, which leads to difficulties in clinical management. We therefore analyzed the genomic regions of 15 CRC susceptibility genes in leukocyte DNA of 34 unrelated sLS patients and 11 patients with MLH1 hypermethylated tumors with a clear family history. Methods Using targeted next-generation sequencing, we analyzed the entire non-repetitive genomic sequence, including intronic and regulatory sequences, of 15 CRC susceptibility genes. In addition, tumor DNA from 28 sLS patients was analyzed for somatic MMR variants. Results Of 1979 germline variants found in the leukocyte DNA of 34 sLS patients, one was a pathogenic variant (MLH1 c.1667+1delG). Leukocyte DNA of 11 patients with MLH1 hypermethylated tumors was negative for pathogenic germline variants in the tested CRC susceptibility genes and for germline MLH1 hypermethylation. Somatic DNA analysis of 28 sLS tumors identified eight (29%) cases with two pathogenic somatic variants, one with a VUS predicted to pathogenic and LOH, and nine cases (32%) with one pathogenic somatic variant (n = 8) or one VUS predicted to be pathogenic (n = 1). Conclusions This is the first study in sLS patients to include the entire genomic sequence of CRC susceptibility genes. An underlying somatic or germline MMR gene defect was identified in ten of 34 sLS patients (29%). In the remaining sLS patients, the underlying genetic defect explaining the MMRdeficiency in their tumors might be found outside the genomic regions harboring the MMR and other known CRC susceptibility genes.

Whilst common genetic variation in many non-coding genomic regulatory regions are known to impart risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), much of the heritability of CRC remains unexplained. To examine the role of recurrent coding sequence variation in CRC aetiology, we genotyped 12,638 CRCs cases and 29,045 controls from six European populations. Single-variant analysis identified a coding variant (rs3184504) in SH2B3 (12q24) associated with CRC risk (OR = 1.08, P = 3.9 × 10-7), and novel damaging coding variants in 3 genes previously tagged by GWAS efforts; rs16888728 (8q24) in UTP23 (OR = 1.15, P = 1.4 × 10-7); rs6580742 and rs12303082 (12q13) in FAM186A (OR = 1.11, P = 1.2 × 10-7

Background: Colorectal adenomatous polyposis is associated with a high risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and is frequently caused by germline mutations in APC or MUTYH. However, in about 20-30% of patients no underlying gene defect can be identified. In this study, we tested if recently identified CRC risk variants play a role in patients with >10 adenomas. Methods We analysed a total of 16 SNPs with a reported association with CR

Purpose: Pheochromocytomas (PCC) and paragangliomas (PGL) are genetically heterogeneous neural crest-derived neoplasms. Recently we identified germline mutations in a new tumor suppressor susceptibility gene, MAX (MYC-associated factor X), which predisposes carriers to PCC. How MAX mutations contribute to PCC/PGL and associated phenotypes remain unclear. This study aimed to examine the prevalence and associated phenotypic features of germline and somatic MAX mutations in PCC/PGL. Design: We sequenced MAX in 1,694 patients with PCC or PGL (without mutations in other major susceptibility genes) from 17 independent referral centers. We screened for large deletions/duplications in 1,535 patients using a multiplex PCR-based method. Somatic mutations were searched for in tumors from an additional 245 patients. The frequency and type of MAX mutation was assessed overall and by clinical characteristics. Results: Sixteen MAX pathogenic mutations were identified in 23 index patients. All had adrenal tumors, including 13 bilateral or multiple PCCs within the same gland (P < 0.001), 15.8% developed additional tumors at thoracoabdominal sites, and 37% had familial antecedents. Age at diagnosis was lower (P = 0.001) in MAX mutation carriers compared with nonmutated cases. Two patients (10.5%) developed metastatic disease. A mutation affecting MAX was found in five tumors, four of them confirmed as somatic (1.65%). MAX tumors were characterized by substantial increases in normetanephrine, associated with normal or minor increases in metanephrine. Conclusions: Germline mutations in MAX are responsible for 1.12% of PCC/PGL in patients without evidence of other known mutations and should be considered in the genetic work-up of these patients.

Because of genetic heterogeneity, the identification of breast cancer-susceptibility genes has proven to be exceedingly difficult. Here, we define a new subset of families with breast cancer characterized by the presence of colorectal cancer cases. The 1100delC variant of the cell cycle checkpoint kinase CHEK2 gene was present in 18% of 55 families with hereditary breast and colorectal cancer (HBCC) as compared with 4% of 380 families with non-HBCC (P<.001), thus providing genetic evidence for the HBCC phenotype. The CHEK2 1100delC mutation was, however, not the major predisposing factor for the HBCC phenotype but appeared to act in synergy with another, as-yet-unknown susceptibility gene(s). The unequivocal definition of the HBCC phenotype opens new avenues to search for this

Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is the most common genetic susceptibility syndrome for colorectal cancer. HNPCC is most frequently caused by germline mutations in the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes MSH2 and MLH1. Recently, mutations in another MMR gene, MSH6 (also known as GTBP), have also been shown to result in HNPCC. Preliminary data indicate that the phenotype related to MSH6 mutations may differ from the classical HNPCC caused by defects in MSH2 and MLH1. Here, we describe an extended Dutch HNPCC family not fulfilling the Amsterdam criteria II and resulting from a MSH6 mutation. Overall, the penetrance of colorectal cancer appears to be significantly decreased (p<0.001) among the MSH6 mutation carriers in this family when compared with MSH2 and MLH1 carriers (32% by the age of 80 v >80%). Endometrial cancer is a frequent manifestation among female carriers (six out of 13 malignant tumours). Transitional cell carcinoma of the urinary tract is also relatively common in both male and female carriers (10% of the carriers). Moreover, the mean age of onset of both colorectal cancer (MSH6 v MSH2/MLH1 = 55 years v 44/41 years) and endometrial carcinomas (MSH6 v MSH2/MLH1 = 55 years v 49/48 years) is delayed. As previously reported, we confirm that the pattern of microsatellite instability, in combination with immunohistochemical analysis, can predict the presence of a MSH6 germline defect. The detailed characterisation of the clinical phenotype of this kindred contributes to the establishment of genotype-phenotype correlations in HNPCC owing to mutations in specific mismatch repair genes.

Background. In familial adenomatous polyposis the only curative treatment is colectomy, and the choice of operation lies between restorative proctocolectomy (RPC) and colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis (IRA). The RPC procedure carries a higher morbidity but, unlike IRA, removes the risk of subsequent rectal cancer. Since the course of familial adenomatous polyposis is influenced by the site of mutation in the polyposis gene, DNA analysis might be helpful in treatment decisions. Methods. We evaluated the incidence of rectal cancer in polyposis patients who had undergone IRA, and examined whether the requirement for subsequent rectal excision because of cancer or uncontrollable polyps was related to the site of mutation. Findings. Between 1956 and mid-1995, 225 patients registered at the Netherlands Polyposis Registry had undergone IRA. In 87 of them, a pathogenetic metation was detected. 72 patients had a mutation located before codeon 1250 and 15 patients after this codon. The cumulative risk of rectal cancer 20 years after surgery was 12%, and at that time 42% had undergone rectal excision. The risk of secondary surgery was higher in patients with mutations in the region after codon 1250 than in patinets with mutations before this codon (relative risk 2.7, p < 0.05). Interpretation. On this evidence, IRA should be the primary treatment for polyposis in patients with mutations before codon 1250, and RPC in those with mutations after this codon.