Universal testing in endometrial cancer in Sweden.
Endometrial cancer
Lynch syndrome
Universal testing
Journal
Hereditary cancer in clinical practice
ISSN: 1731-2302
Titre abrégé: Hered Cancer Clin Pract
Pays: Poland
ID NLM: 101231179
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Aug 2024
22 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
06
12
2023
accepted:
19
08
2024
medline:
23
8
2024
pubmed:
23
8
2024
entrez:
22
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of the study was to test a universal screening strategy on endometrial cancer to evaluate its effectiveness to find Lynch Syndrome (LS) cases to two established clinical criteria: Amsterdam II criteria, and the revised Bethesda criteria to select cases for prescreening with immunohistochemistry (IHC). Cases were subsequently screened for germline disease causing variants regarding the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes. IHC was performed on 221 endometrial cancer (EC) cases, using antibodies against the DNA mismatch repair proteins MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6. MMR loss was found in 54 cases, and gene mutation screening was undertaken in 52 of those. In this set of patients, the use of Amsterdam II criteria detected two (0.9%), the Bethesda criteria two (0.9%), and universal testing five (2.3%) cases of LS. The combination of universal testing and family history criteria resulted in detection of five patients (2.3%) with LS. Based on our results and other similar studies to date we propose a screening protocol for LS on EC tumors with prescreening using IHC for the four MMR proteins on all new EC cases diagnosed before 70 years of age, followed by mutation screening of all tumors with loss of MSH2 and/or MSH6 or only PMS2, plus consideration for mutation screening of all LS genes in cases fulfilling the clinical Amsterdam II criteria regardless of MMR status on IHC.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of the study was to test a universal screening strategy on endometrial cancer to evaluate its effectiveness to find Lynch Syndrome (LS) cases to two established clinical criteria: Amsterdam II criteria, and the revised Bethesda criteria to select cases for prescreening with immunohistochemistry (IHC). Cases were subsequently screened for germline disease causing variants regarding the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes.
METHODS
METHODS
IHC was performed on 221 endometrial cancer (EC) cases, using antibodies against the DNA mismatch repair proteins MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6. MMR loss was found in 54 cases, and gene mutation screening was undertaken in 52 of those.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In this set of patients, the use of Amsterdam II criteria detected two (0.9%), the Bethesda criteria two (0.9%), and universal testing five (2.3%) cases of LS. The combination of universal testing and family history criteria resulted in detection of five patients (2.3%) with LS.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our results and other similar studies to date we propose a screening protocol for LS on EC tumors with prescreening using IHC for the four MMR proteins on all new EC cases diagnosed before 70 years of age, followed by mutation screening of all tumors with loss of MSH2 and/or MSH6 or only PMS2, plus consideration for mutation screening of all LS genes in cases fulfilling the clinical Amsterdam II criteria regardless of MMR status on IHC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39175077
doi: 10.1186/s13053-024-00288-2
pii: 10.1186/s13053-024-00288-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
14Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Esposito K, et al. Metabolic syndrome and endometrial cancer: a meta-analysis. Endocrine. 2014;45(1):28–36.
doi: 10.1007/s12020-013-9973-3
pubmed: 23640372
Egoavil C, et al. Prevalence of Lynch syndrome among patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancers. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(11):e79737.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079737
pubmed: 24244552
pmcid: 3820559
Singh S, Resnick KE. Lynch Syndrome and Endometrial Cancer. South Med J. 2017;110(4):265–9.
doi: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000633
pubmed: 28376523
Hampel H, et al. Screening for Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) among endometrial cancer patients. Cancer Res. 2006;66(15):7810–7.
doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-1114
pubmed: 16885385
Hampel H, et al. Feasibility of screening for Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(35):5783–8.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.5950
pubmed: 18809606
pmcid: 2645108
Kahn RM, et al. Universal endometrial cancer tumor typing: How much has immunohistochemistry, microsatellite instability, and MLH1 methylation improved the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome across the population? Cancer. 2019;125(18):3172–83.
doi: 10.1002/cncr.32203
pubmed: 31150123
Leclerc J, Vermaut C, Buisine MP. Diagnosis of Lynch Syndrome and Strategies to Distinguish Lynch-Related Tumors from Sporadic MSI/dMMR Tumors. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(3):467.
doi: 10.3390/cancers13030467
pubmed: 33530449
Giardiello FM, et al. Guidelines on genetic evaluation and management of Lynch syndrome: a consensus statement by the US Multi-society Task Force on colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(8):1159–79.
doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.186
pubmed: 25070057
Goodfellow PJ, et al. Combined Microsatellite Instability, MLH1 Methylation Analysis, and Immunohistochemistry for Lynch Syndrome Screening in Endometrial Cancers From GOG210: An NRG Oncology and Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(36):4301–8.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.9518
pubmed: 26552419
pmcid: 4678181
Mills AM, et al. Lynch syndrome screening should be considered for all patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38(11):1501–9.
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000321
pubmed: 25229768
pmcid: 4361228
Batte BA, et al. Consequences of universal MSI/IHC in screening ENDOMETRIAL cancer patients for Lynch syndrome. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;134(2):319–25.
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.06.009
pubmed: 24933100
pmcid: 4125501
Moller P, et al. Cancer incidence and survival in Lynch syndrome patients receiving colonoscopic and gynaecological surveillance: first report from the prospective Lynch syndrome database. Gut. 2017;66(3):464–72.
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309675
pubmed: 26657901
Tzortzatos G, et al. Familial cancer among consecutive uterine cancer patients in Sweden. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2014;12(1):14.
doi: 10.1186/1897-4287-12-14
pubmed: 24851142
pmcid: 4029977
Park JG, et al. Suspected HNPCC and Amsterdam criteria II: evaluation of mutation detection rate, an international collaborative study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2002;17(2):109–14.
doi: 10.1007/s003840100348
pubmed: 12014418
Umar A, et al. Revised Bethesda Guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(4):261–8.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djh034
pubmed: 14970275
Keranen A, et al. Testing strategies to reduce morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018;53(12):1535–40.
doi: 10.1080/00365521.2018.1542453
pubmed: 30572730
Vaughn CP, et al. Clinical analysis of PMS2: mutation detection and avoidance of pseudogenes. Hum Mutat. 2010;31(5):588–93.
pubmed: 20205264
Richards S, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015;17(5):405–24.
doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.30
pubmed: 25741868
pmcid: 4544753
Thompson BA, et al. Application of a 5-tiered scheme for standardized classification of 2,360 unique mismatch repair gene variants in the InSiGHT locus-specific database. Nat Genet. 2014;46(2):107–15.
doi: 10.1038/ng.2854
pubmed: 24362816
Shia J, et al. Immunohistochemistry as first-line screening for detecting colorectal cancer patients at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: a 2-antibody panel may be as predictive as a 4-antibody panel. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(11):1639–45.
doi: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181b15aa2
pubmed: 19701074
Pinol V, et al. Accuracy of revised Bethesda guidelines, microsatellite instability, and immunohistochemistry for the identification of patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. JAMA. 2005;293(16):1986–94.
doi: 10.1001/jama.293.16.1986
pubmed: 15855432
You JF, et al. Tumours with loss of MSH6 expression are MSI-H when screened with a pentaplex of five mononucleotide repeats. Br J Cancer. 2010;103(12):1840–5.
doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605988
pubmed: 21081928
pmcid: 3008611
Shia J. Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing for screening colorectal cancer patients at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Part I. The utility of immunohistochemistry. J Mol Diagn. 2008;10(4):293–300.
doi: 10.2353/jmoldx.2008.080031
pubmed: 18556767
pmcid: 2438196
Sjursen W, et al. Current clinical criteria for Lynch syndrome are not sensitive enough to identify MSH6 mutation carriers. J Med Genet. 2010;47(9):579–85.
doi: 10.1136/jmg.2010.077677
pubmed: 20587412
Goodfellow PJ, et al. Prevalence of defective DNA mismatch repair and MSH6 mutation in an unselected series of endometrial cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(10):5908–13.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1030231100
pubmed: 12732731
pmcid: 156300
Ryan NAJ, et al. The proportion of endometrial cancers associated with Lynch syndrome: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Genet Med. 2019;21(10):2167–80.
doi: 10.1038/s41436-019-0536-8
pubmed: 31086306
pmcid: 8076013
Adar T, et al. Universal screening of both endometrial and colon cancers increases the detection of Lynch syndrome. Cancer. 2018;124(15):3145–53.
doi: 10.1002/cncr.31534
pubmed: 29750335
Ryan NAJ, et al. The proportion of endometrial tumours associated with Lynch syndrome (PETALS): A prospective cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2020;17(9):e1003263.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003263
pubmed: 32941469
pmcid: 7497985
Dillon JL, et al. Universal screening for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancers: frequency of germline mutations and identification of patients with Lynch-like syndrome. Hum Pathol. 2017;70:121–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2017.10.022
pubmed: 29107668
Cosgrove CM, et al. Epigenetic silencing of MLH1 in endometrial cancers is associated with larger tumor volume, increased rate of lymph node positivity and reduced recurrence-free survival. Gynecol Oncol. 2017;146(3):588–95.
doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.07.003
pubmed: 28709704
pmcid: 5601318
Lemery S, Keegan P, Pazdur R. First FDA Approval Agnostic of Cancer Site - When a Biomarker Defines the Indication. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(15):1409–12.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1709968
pubmed: 29020592
Snowsill TM, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer in the UK setting. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(8):e0221419.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221419
pubmed: 31469860
pmcid: 6716649
Erten MZ, et al. Universal Versus Targeted Screening for Lynch Syndrome: Comparing Ascertainment and Costs Based on Clinical Experience. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61(10):2887–95.
doi: 10.1007/s10620-016-4218-y
pubmed: 27384051
Snowsill TM, Ryan NAJ, Crosbie EJ. Cost-Effectiveness of the Manchester Approach to Identifying Lynch Syndrome in Women with Endometrial Cancer. J Clin Med. 2020;9(6):1664.
doi: 10.3390/jcm9061664
pubmed: 32492863
pmcid: 7356917
Kwon JS, et al. Testing women with endometrial cancer to detect Lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(16):2247–52.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.9979
pubmed: 21537049
pmcid: 4874206
Ryan NAJ, et al. A Micro-Costing Study of Screening for Lynch Syndrome-Associated Pathogenic Variants in an Unselected Endometrial Cancer Population: Cheap as NGS Chips? Front Oncol. 2019;9:61.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00061
pubmed: 30863719
pmcid: 6399107