Routine universal screening for Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer patients in the community setting.

1512 Background: Identification of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases that are due to Lynch Syndrome (LS) is important to prevent secondary malignancies or development of additional malignancies among relatives. Utilization of clinical criteria to select CRC patients for laboratory testing fails to identify a significant proportion of patients whose CRC is due to LS. Therefore, universal screening for LS among CRC patients has been advocated by the Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group. However, the feasibility of routine universal screening has not been evaluated in a community-based, non-research setting. We implemented a universal screening protocol for LS as part of routine care of CRC at Norton Healthcare, a multi-institutional community-based healthcare organization. Methods: Beginning in October 2009, all resected CRC tumors automatically underwent immunohistochemistry analysis (IHC) for Lynch Syndrome-associated mismatch repair gene (MMR) expression. Selected patients who underexpressed MLH1 also underwent testing for the BRAF V600E mutation. Patients who had a BRAF V600E mutation were considered to have sporadic CRC. All other patients with abnormal IHC were automatically referred for genetic counseling. We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of genetic counseling in all patients referred through this universal screening protocol. Results: Between October 2009 and December 2011, 388 patients underwent resection of CRC, all of whom had IHC for MMR expression. Seventy patients were identified as having abnormal IHC. Sixty-two had MLH1/PMS2 underexpression, of which 18 underwent BRAF testing and 13 had a BRAF V600E mutation. Eight had MSH2/MSH6 underexpression. Nine patients have been confirmed to have LS, 31 have been found not to have LS, and 19 are in the process of evaluation. Seven patients declined genetic counseling, and 4 died before they could be adequately evaluated. Conclusions: Universal screening for CRC due to LS, using IHC with select BRAF V600E mutation testing and automated referral for genetic counseling, is feasible in the community setting. Funded in part with federal funds: NCI, NIH, Contract No. HHSN261200800001.

Download Full-text

Improving detection of Lynch syndrome using a reflex immunohistochemistry algorithm for all patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2012.30.34_suppl.98 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽

pp. 98-98

Author(s):

Minggui Pan ◽

Elizabeth Hoodfar ◽

JoAnn Bergoffen ◽

Regan Fulton ◽

Laura Hofmeister ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Lynch Syndrome ◽

Germline Mutation ◽

Detection Rate ◽

Promoter Hypermethylation ◽

Braf V600e Mutation ◽

Braf V600e ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Mlh1 Promoter ◽

Mmr Proteins

98 Background: Identifying patients with Lynch syndrome has profound impact on the clinical care of patients and their families. Previous guidelines based on family history alone have shown low sensitivity. In our medical center, the detection rate of Lynch syndrome was <1% among colorectal cancer cases. Methods: We have developed a system-based algorithm using centralized testing by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for four mismatched repair (MMR) proteins (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) as a screening method for all newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients, followed by step wise testing of BRAF mutation, MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, +/- microsatellite instability, and germline mutation. Results: From April 1, 2011, to July 11, 2012, we have screened 116 patients. IHC detected absent expression of at least one of the MMR proteins in 18 cases. Three cases showed missing expression of MSH2/MSH6 and the presence of a germline mutation in MSH6 was confirmed in two cases. The newest case is still being investigated for germline mutation. Of the remaining 15 cases, 10 showed the presence of BRAF V600E mutation, two showed hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter, and one showed germline MLH1 mutation. Two cases showed no BRAF V600E mutation, no MLH1 promoter hypermethylation or germline gene mutation. Overall, of 116 cases, three cases have confirmed Lynch syndrome with the detection of a germline mutation, two cases most likely have Lynch syndrome but without any detectable germline mutation of MLH1 or PMS2 using the current detecting methods. Conclusions: Our system-based screening algorithm using reflex immunohistochemistry of four MMR proteins has resulted in excellent detection rate of approximately 4% to 5% (5 out of 116 cases), consistent with the expected Lynch syndrome prevalence rate in the population. This represents a marked improvement over our previous family history-based approach in Lynch syndrome screening.

Download Full-text

Evaluating the clinical utility of universal screening to identify Lynch syndrome in stage III/III colorectal cancer patients: A prospective observational study in Japan.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2021.39.3_suppl.41 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽

pp. 41-41

Author(s):

Yasuaki Yamamoto ◽

Yuichiro Tsukada ◽

Takeshi Kuwata ◽

Motohiro Kojima ◽

Yumie Hiraoka ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Lynch Syndrome ◽

Universal Screening ◽

Clinical Utility ◽

Braf V600e ◽

Study Patient ◽

Degree Relative ◽

Western Countries ◽

Dna Mismatch ◽

Reflex Testing

41 Background: Universal screening for Lynch syndrome (LS) by identifying deficient DNA mismatch repair (MMR) in the tumor tissue of all new colorectal cancer (CRC) patients is widely accepted. The population prevalence of LS is approximately 3% in Western countries, whereas it is approximately 0.7% in Japan. In addition, the number of relatives diagnosed per proband is 3.6 in Western countries, whereas there are even fewer diagnoses per proband in Japan. To address the issue of LS remaining largely underdiagnosed in Japan, we prospectively evaluated the clinical utility of universal screening of LS in CRC patients. Methods: From March 2016 to August 2019, all consecutive new cases of stage II/III CRC underwent immunohistochemistry (IHC) screening for MMR using MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 antibodies. The patients negative for both MLH1 and PMS2 (MLH1-/PMS2-) were subjected to reflex testing for BRAF V600E mutation. Patients with both MLH1-/PMS2- and BRAF negative (cohort A, n = 14) and those with other IHC patterns (cohort B, n = 13) were referred for genetic counseling (GC) and genetic testing (GT). Furthermore, relatives of probands with confirmed LS were referred for GC/GT if they were willing. Results: Overall, 591 pts were enrolled in this study. Patient background were as follows: > 70 y/o, 35%; right-sided/left-sided colon/rectum, 24%/24%/53%; and cStage II/III, 65%/35%. Of 591 patients, 40 (6.8%) had MMR deficiency. Of 27 patients with MLH1-/PMS2-, 24 underwent BRAF reflex testing; only 10 of these patients tested positive for mutation. Of 27 patients recommended for GC, 25 were referred for GC and 22 for GT, which revealed 12 LS cases (2%, mutation genes:MLH1/PMS2/MSH2; 4/2/6). The frequency of LS diagnosis with respect to patient background was as follows: > 70/≤70 y, 1.0/2.6%; right-sided/left-sided colon/rectum, 5.8/0/1.3%; and cStage II/III, 2.6/1.0%. Interestingly, only 3 (25%) of 12 patients who underwent GC/GT in cohort A had LS compared with 9 (90%) of 10 patients in cohort B ( p= 0.004). Moreover, among 11 relatives of 5 families who were willing to undergo GC/GT, six (55%) had LS, of whom two were first-degree relatives (33%), one was a second-degree relative (50%), and three were third-degree relatives (100%). Conclusions: This study showed that universal screening of LS in CRC patients is significantly useful in Japan. Furthermore, implementing a reflex testing strategy demonstrated high adherence to guidelines and the appropriateness of our referrals for GC/GT.

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Impact of an immunohistochemistry-based universal screening protocol for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer on genetic counseling and testing.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.725326622.793503850 ◽

2015 ◽

Author(s):

David Kushner ◽

Laura Huffman

Keyword(s):

Endometrial Cancer ◽

Genetic Counseling ◽

Lynch Syndrome ◽

Universal Screening ◽

Counseling And Testing ◽

Screening Protocol

Download Full-text

Molecular biology from bench-to-bedside: Which colorectal cancer patients to refer for genetic counseling

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2009.27.15_suppl.4113 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 4113-4113

Author(s):

L. H. Jensen ◽

L. Dysager ◽

J. Lindebjerg ◽

S. Kølvraa ◽

L. Byriel ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Family History ◽

Lynch Syndrome ◽

Braf V600e Mutation ◽

Braf V600e ◽

Wild Type ◽

Mlh1 Promoter ◽

Dna Quality ◽

Colorectal Cancer Patients

4113 Background: The single most common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer is the Lynch syndrome, which is associated with deficiency of the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6. Most MLH1 negative tumors are sporadic in origin, and they can be identified if harbouring a BRAF V600E mutation or hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter. If Lynch syndrome is detected in a patient and its family, screening can prevent death from new colorectal cancer. A family history should always be obtained, but in small families or patients with de-novo mutations and mutations with late or low penetrance, this is not sufficient. The aim of this study was to validate our previously suggested clinically applicable strategy based on molecular characteristics for identifying which patients to refer for genetic counselling. Methods: The strategy was validated in an unselected cohort of 287 colorectal cancer patients. All tumors was tested for MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 with immunohistochemistry. DNA from MLH1 negative tumors was sequenced for BRAF mutations. If wild-type, MLH1 promoter was analyzed with methylation specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). MLH1 negative tumors were considered sporadic if BRAF V600E mutation or MLH1 promoter hypermethylation was found. A follow up was done on patients with MSH2 or MSH6 negative tumors and MLH1 negative cases not shown to be sporadic. Results: Most tumors, 251 (88%), stained positive for all three proteins. Six (2%) had negative MSH2 and one (<1%) isolated loss of MSH6. MLH1 was negative in 29 cases (10%). DNA quality allowed BRAF analysis in 27 of these with 14 mutations and 13 wild-type. DNA quality allowed MLPA in four of the 13 BRAF wild-type, and all four were methylated. Subsequently, Lynch syndrome could not be ruled out in 18 patients. A follow-up at 8–10 years revealed four definite Lynch syndrome and four highly suspicious. Conclusions: An easy and clinically applicable step-wise approach with immunohistochemistry (100%), BRAF sequencing (10%), and methylation analysis (5%) identified several patients with hereditary cancer. The family history should be supplemented with a molecular screening for whom to send for genetic counselling. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Download Full-text