Performance characteristics of screening strategies to identify Lynch syndrome in women with ovarian cancer.
Lynch syndrome
ovarian cancer
screening
tumor testing
Journal
Cancer
ISSN: 1097-0142
Titre abrégé: Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0374236
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 11 2020
15 11 2020
Historique:
received:
11
06
2020
revised:
17
07
2020
accepted:
20
07
2020
pubmed:
19
8
2020
medline:
9
6
2021
entrez:
19
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
For women with ovarian cancer (OC), the optimal screening strategy to identify Lynch syndrome (LS) has not been determined. In the current study, the authors compared the performance characteristics of various strategies combining mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC), microsatellite instability testing (MSI), and family history for the detection of LS. Women with nonserous and/or nonmucinous ovarian cancer were recruited prospectively from 3 cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. All underwent germline testing for LS and completed a family history assessment. Tumors were assessed using MMR IHC and MSI. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of screening strategies were compared with the gold standard of a germline result. Of 215 women, germline data were available for 189 (88%); 13 women (7%) had pathogenic germline variants with 7 women with mutS homolog 6 (MSH6); 3 women with mutL homolog 1 (MLH1); 2 women with PMS1 homolog 2, mismatch repair system component (PMS2); and 1 woman with mutS homolog 2 (MSH2). A total of 28 women had MMR-deficient tumors (13%); of these, 11 had pathogenic variants (39%). Sequential IHC (with MLH1 promoter methylation analysis on MLH1-deficient tumors) followed by MSI for nonmethylated and/or MMR-intact patients was the most sensitive (92.3%; 95% confidence interval, 64%-99.8%) and specific (97.7%; 95% confidence interval, 94.2%-99.4%) approach, missing 1 case of LS. IHC with MLH1 promoter methylation analysis missed 2 patients of LS. Family history was found to have the lowest sensitivity at 55%. Sequential IHC (with MLH1 promoter methylation analysis) followed by MSI was found to be most sensitive. However, IHC with MLH1 promoter methylation analysis also performed well and is likely more cost-effective and efficient in the clinical setting. The pretest probability of LS is high in patients with MMR deficiency and warrants universal screening for LS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
For women with ovarian cancer (OC), the optimal screening strategy to identify Lynch syndrome (LS) has not been determined. In the current study, the authors compared the performance characteristics of various strategies combining mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC), microsatellite instability testing (MSI), and family history for the detection of LS.
METHODS
Women with nonserous and/or nonmucinous ovarian cancer were recruited prospectively from 3 cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. All underwent germline testing for LS and completed a family history assessment. Tumors were assessed using MMR IHC and MSI. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of screening strategies were compared with the gold standard of a germline result.
RESULTS
Of 215 women, germline data were available for 189 (88%); 13 women (7%) had pathogenic germline variants with 7 women with mutS homolog 6 (MSH6); 3 women with mutL homolog 1 (MLH1); 2 women with PMS1 homolog 2, mismatch repair system component (PMS2); and 1 woman with mutS homolog 2 (MSH2). A total of 28 women had MMR-deficient tumors (13%); of these, 11 had pathogenic variants (39%). Sequential IHC (with MLH1 promoter methylation analysis on MLH1-deficient tumors) followed by MSI for nonmethylated and/or MMR-intact patients was the most sensitive (92.3%; 95% confidence interval, 64%-99.8%) and specific (97.7%; 95% confidence interval, 94.2%-99.4%) approach, missing 1 case of LS. IHC with MLH1 promoter methylation analysis missed 2 patients of LS. Family history was found to have the lowest sensitivity at 55%.
CONCLUSIONS
Sequential IHC (with MLH1 promoter methylation analysis) followed by MSI was found to be most sensitive. However, IHC with MLH1 promoter methylation analysis also performed well and is likely more cost-effective and efficient in the clinical setting. The pretest probability of LS is high in patients with MMR deficiency and warrants universal screening for LS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32809219
doi: 10.1002/cncr.33144
pmc: PMC7693219
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4886-4894Subventions
Organisme : Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute
ID : 704038
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.
Références
Int J Cancer. 2011 Oct 15;129(8):1914-22
pubmed: 21140452
Genet Med. 2014 Jan;16(1):101-16
pubmed: 24310308
Cancer. 2016 Jun 1;122(11):1672-9
pubmed: 27019099
Cancer. 2014 Dec 15;120(24):3932-9
pubmed: 25081409
Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Mar;144(3):491-495
pubmed: 28065618
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Feb;136(2):311-6
pubmed: 25529831
Cell Res. 2008 Jan;18(1):85-98
pubmed: 18157157
Eur J Cancer. 2000 Jan;36(1):49-54
pubmed: 10741294
Curr Pharm Des. 2014;20(11):1655-63
pubmed: 23888949
JAMA. 2011 Jun 8;305(22):2304-10
pubmed: 21642682
Cancer Res. 1998 Nov 15;58(22):5248-57
pubmed: 9823339
Cancer. 2020 Nov 15;126(22):4886-4894
pubmed: 32809219
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Jan 10;32(2):90-100
pubmed: 24323032
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Jun 1;4(6):806-813
pubmed: 29596542
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Mar;55:65-73
pubmed: 26773421
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Oct;135(1):81-4
pubmed: 25093288
Hum Mutat. 2016 Jun;37(6):564-9
pubmed: 26931183
Fam Cancer. 2013 Jun;12(2):229-40
pubmed: 23604856
J Med Genet. 2018 Sep;55(9):571-577
pubmed: 30042185
Gynecol Oncol. 2014 Feb;132(2):506-12
pubmed: 24333356
Genet Med. 2009 Jan;11(1):35-41
pubmed: 19125126
Genet Med. 2015 May;17(5):405-24
pubmed: 25741868
Gynecol Oncol. 2018 Aug;150(2):324-330
pubmed: 29880284
Front Oncol. 2019 Feb 26;9:61
pubmed: 30863719
Clin Genet. 2009 Jul;76(1):1-18
pubmed: 19659756
J Pathol Clin Res. 2019 Apr;5(2):115-129
pubmed: 30387329
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Jan;136(1):3-7
pubmed: 25238946
Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2015 Jul;16(7):30
pubmed: 26031544
Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2012 Nov;31(6):524-31
pubmed: 23018216