Benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of cancer screening in Australia: an overview of modelling estimates.

INTRODUCTION: There are three government-funded population-based screening programs in Australia - the national breast cancer screening program (BreastScreen Australia), the National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP), and the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP). Options for early detection of other cancers (e.g. hepatocellular carcinoma and melanoma) are under investigation. This study provides an overview of the health benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of population-level breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening, targeted-risk screening for lung cancer and Lynch syndrome, and prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing in Australia. METHODS: The study reviewed and, where possible, updated the estimated health benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of screening approaches from modelling studies for four cancer types, PSA testing and Lynch syndrome testing in Australia. Costs are presented in 2018 Australian dollars. RESULTS: The renewed NCSP (for women not HPV-vaccinated) and the NBCSP were estimated to be cost-effective versus no screening; the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) was $16 632 per life-year saved (LYS) for the NCSP, and $3380/LYS for the NBCSP. BreastScreen Australia was predicted to have a CER of $40 279/LYS-$65 065/LYS. In 2017, the NCSP transitioned to 5-yearly primary HPV testing with partial genotyping for HPV types 16 and 18 for women aged 25-74 years. Alongside vaccination, this change is predicted to prevent a further 587 cervical cancer deaths in 2018-2035, and have a favourable benefit-to-harm balance versus prior practice (biennial cytology testing for women aged 18-69 years). On average, the NBCSP (biennial screening using an immunochemical faecal occult blood test for people aged 50-74 years) is estimated to prevent 2519 colorectal cancer deaths and result in 350 colonoscopy-related adverse events annually. The inaccuracy of PSA testing as a screening tool impedes the capacity to conduct meaningful cost-effectiveness analyses at a population level, based on current evidence. Three annual low-dose computed tomography screens for lung cancer using the US National Lung Screening Trial selection criteria would not be cost-effective in Australia. A comprehensive cost-effectiveness evaluation of systematic proband testing, cascade testing and subsequent surveillance for Lynch syndrome in Australia is currently underway. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence supports a favourable cost-effectiveness and benefit-to-harm balance for the NCSP and NBCSP. An updated cost-effectiveness and benefits-to-harms analysis for BreastScreen Australia is required. Carefully founded quantitative estimates of health benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness provide an important aid to policy decision making, and form the basis for developing decision aids to guide individual screening decisions. Opportunities exist for lung cancer screening, systematic Lynch syndrome testing and informed decision making about PSA testing. However, more evidence is required on risk assessment, targeting of screening tests, optimal referral pathways, managing potential harms and delivering services in a cost-effective framework.

Universal endometrial cancer tumor typing: How much has immunohistochemistry, microsatellite instability, and MLH1 methylation improved the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome across the population?

BACKGROUND: Universal tumor testing for defective DNA mismatch repair (MMR) is recommended for all women diagnosed with endometrial cancer to identify those with underlying Lynch syndrome. However, the effectiveness of these screening methods in identifying individuals with Lynch syndrome across the population has not been well studied. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), mutL homolog 1 (MLH1) methylation, and microsatellite instability (MSI) analysis among patients with endometrial cancer. METHODS: A complete systematic search of online databases (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library) for 1990-2018 was performed. A DerSimonian-Laird random effects model meta-analysis was used to estimate the weighted prevalence of Lynch syndrome diagnoses. RESULTS: The comprehensive search produced 4400 publications. Twenty-nine peer-reviewed studies met the inclusion criteria. Patients with endometrial cancer (n = 6649) were identified, and 206 (3%) were confirmed to have Lynch syndrome through germline genetic testing after positive universal tumor molecular screening. Among 5917 patients who underwent tumor IHC, 28% had abnormal staining. Among 3140 patients who underwent MSI analysis, 31% had MSI. Among patients with endometrial cancer, the weighted prevalence of Lynch syndrome germline mutations was 15% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11%-18%) with deficient IHC staining and 19% (95% CI, 13%-26%) with a positive MSI analysis. Among 1159 patients who exhibited a loss of MLH1 staining, 143 (13.7%) were found to be MLH1 methylation-negative among those who underwent methylation testing, and 32 demonstrated a germline MLH1 mutation (2.8% of all absent MLH1 staining cases and 22.4% of all MLH1 methylation-negative cases). Forty-three percent of patients with endometrial cancer who were diagnosed with Lynch syndrome via tumor typing would have been missed by family history-based screening alone. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the widespread implementation of universal tumor testing in endometrial cancer, data regarding testing results remain limited. This study provides predictive values that will help practitioners to evaluate abnormal results in the context of Lynch syndrome and aid them in patient counseling.

Cutaneous sebaceous tumours and Lynch syndrome: long-term follow-up of 60 patients.

BACKGROUND: Sebaceous neoplasms (SN) may appear sporadically in the general population but may also be part of the Muir-Torre variant of Lynch syndrome (MT-LS). There are few studies in southern Europe on the incidence of MT-LS in the population of patients with SN. AIM: To retrospectively review patients with SN and to analyse their clinical features and the incidence of MT-LS. METHODS: Patients with SN diagnosed between 1995 and 2015 were enrolled in the study. The diagnosis of MT-LS was made according to established clinical criteria and, whenever possible, was confirmed by germline mutation analysis. RESULTS: In 60 patients (32 men, 28 women, mean age 69.22 years), 96 SN were diagnosed: 65 adenomas (67.7%), 16 sebaceomas (16.7%) and 15 carcinomas (15.6%). Of the 60 patients, 50 (83.3%) had a single SN and 10 (16.7%) had multiple lesions. Patients diagnosed with MT-LS (12 patients, 20%) were younger (63.25 years vs. 70.71 years), and had a higher incidence of extrafacial SN (4/12 patients, 33.3%), and were significantly (P < 0.001) more likely to have multiple SNs (8/12, 75%) and keratoacanthomas (KAs) (6/12, 50%). CONCLUSION: Our study confirms that all patients with SN should be investigated, as 20% of our patients were diagnosed with MT-LS. The most specific features of SN associated with MT-LS in our study were the presence of multiple lesions and association with KAs.

Lynch syndrome-associated endometrial carcinoma with MLH1 germline mutation and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation: a case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is an autosomal dominant inherited disease caused by germline mutations in mismatch repair genes. Analysis for microsatellite instability (MSI) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) of protein expressions of disease-associated genes is used to screen for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer patients. When losses of both MLH1 and PMS2 proteins are observed by IHC, MLH1 promoter methylation analysis is conducted to distinguish Lynch syndrome-associated endometrial cancer from sporadic cancer. CASE PRESENTATION: Here we report a woman who developed endometrial cancer at the age of 49 years. She had a family history of colorectal cancer (first-degree relative aged 52 years) and stomach cancer (second-degree relative with the age of onset unknown). No other family history was present, and she failed to meet the Amsterdam II criteria for the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome. Losses of MLH1 and PMS2, but not MSH2 and MSH6, proteins were observed by IHC in endometrial cancer tissues. Because MLH1 promoter hypermethylation was detected in endometrial cancer tissue samples, the epigenetic silencing of MLH1 was suspected as the cause of the protein loss. However, because of the early onset of endometrial cancer and the positive family history, a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome was also suspected. Therefore, we provided her with genetic counseling. After obtaining her consent, MLH1 promoter methylation testing and genetic testing of peripheral blood were performed. MLH1 promoter methylation was not observed in peripheral blood. However, genetic testing revealed a large deletion of exon 5 in MLH1; thus, we diagnosed the presence of Lynch syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Both MLH1 germline mutation and MLH1 promoter hypermethylation may be observed in endometrial cancer. Therefore, even if MLH1 promoter hypermethylation is detected, a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome cannot be excluded.

The use of panel testing in familial breast and ovarian cancer.

Advances in sequencing technology have led to the introduction of panel testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. While direct-to-consumer testing services have become widely available, the clinical validity of many of the genes on panel tests remains contentious and risk management guidelines are often lacking. This article gives an overview of advantages with panel testing as well as important challenges, including clinical translation of test results.

Multi-disciplinary summit on genetics services for women with gynecologic cancers: A Society of Gynecologic Oncology White Paper.

OBJECTIVE: To assess current practice, advise minimum standards, and identify educational gaps relevant to genetic screening, counseling, and testing of women affected by gynecologic cancers. METHODS: The Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) organized a multidisciplinary summit that included representatives from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Society Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC), and patient advocacy groups, BrightPink and Facing our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE). Three subject areas were discussed: care delivery models for genetic testing, barriers to genetic testing, and educational opportunities for providers of genetic testing. RESULTS: The group endorsed current SGO, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and NSGC genetic testing guidelines for women affected with ovarian, tubal, peritoneal cancers, or DNA mismatch repair deficient endometrial cancer. Three main areas of unmet need were identified: timely and universal genetic testing for women with ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers; education regarding minimum standards for genetic counseling and testing; and barriers to implementation of testing of both affected individuals as well as cascade testing of family members. Consensus building among all stakeholders resulted in an action plan to address gaps in education of gynecologic oncology providers and delivery of cancer genetics care.

Current and future role of genetic screening in gynecologic malignancies.

The world of hereditary cancers has seen exponential growth in recent years. While hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome account for the majority of mutations encountered by gynecologists, newly identified deleterious genetic mutations continue to be unearthed with their associated risks of malignancies. However, these advances in genetic cancer predispositions then force practitioners and their patients to confront the uncertainties of these less commonly identified mutations and the fact that there is limited evidence to guide them in expected cancer risk and appropriate risk-reduction strategies. Given the speed of information, it is imperative to involve cancer genetics experts when counseling these patients. In addition, coordination of screening and care in conjunction with specialty high-risk clinics, if available, allows for patients to have centralized management for multiple cancer risks under the guidance of physicians with experience counseling these patients. The objective of this review is to present the current literature regarding genetic mutations associated with gynecologic malignancies as well to propose screening and risk-reduction options for these high-risk patients.

Cost-effectiveness of routine screening for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer patients up to 70years of age.

PURPOSE: To assess cost-effectiveness of routine screening for Lynch Syndrome (LS) in endometrial cancer (EC) patients ≤70years of age. METHODS: Consecutive EC patients ≤70years of age were screened for LS by analysis of microsatellite instability, immunohistochemistry and MLH1 hypermethylation. Costs and health benefit in life years gained (LYG) included surveillance for LS carriers among EC patients and relatives. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing LS screening among EC patients ≤70years with ≤50years and the revised Bethesda guidelines. RESULTS: Screening for LS in 179 EC patients identified 7 LS carriers; 1 was ≤50 and 6 were 51-70years. Per age category 18 and 9 relatives were identified as LS carrier. Screening resulted in 74,7 LYG (45,4 and 29,3 LYG per age category). The ICER for LS screening in EC patients ≤70 compared with ≤50years was €5,252/LYG. The revised Bethesda guidelines missed 4/7 (57%) LS carriers among EC patients. The ICER for LS screening in EC patients ≤70years of age compared with the revised Bethesda guidelines was €6,668/LYG. Both ICERs remained <€16,000/LYG in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Routine LS screening in EC patients ≤70years is a cost-effective strategy, allowing colorectal cancer prevention in EC patients and their relatives.

Lynch Syndrome: Female Genital Tract Cancer Diagnosis and Screening.

Lynch syndrome is responsible for approximately 5% of endometrial cancers and 1% of ovarian cancers. The molecular basis for Lynch syndrome is a heritable functional deficiency in the DNA mismatch repair system, typically due to a germline mutation. This review discusses the rationales and relative merits of current Lynch syndrome screening tests for endometrial and ovarian cancers and provides pathologists with an informed algorithmic approach to Lynch syndrome testing in gynecologic cancers. Pitfalls in test interpretation and strategies to resolve discordant test results are presented. The potential role for next-generation sequencing panels in future screening efforts is discussed.

Laboratory Assays in Evaluation of Lynch Syndrome in Patients with Endometrial Carcinoma.

This article reviews the main tissue testing modalities for Lynch Syndrome in the pathology laboratory, such as immunohistochemistry and PCR based analyses, and discusses their routine application, interpretation pitfalls, and troubleshooting of common technical performance issues. Discrepancies between laboratory and genetic testing may arise, and are examined in the context of the complexity of molecular abnormalities associated with Lynch Syndrome. The merits of targeted versus universal screening in a changing healthcare climate are addressed. In the absence of comprehensive screening programs, specific tumor topography and histological features that may prompt pathologist-initiated molecular tumor testing are outlined.

Prophylactic Gynecologic Specimens from Hereditary Cancer Carriers.

Hereditary breast ovarian cancer and Lynch/hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome account for most hereditary gynecologic cancers. In the absence of effective cancer screening and other preventative strategies, risk-reducing surgery in women who are known to be at genetic risk of BRCA-associated or of Lynch syndrome carcinomas is effective in significantly decreasing the lifetime risk of developing malignancy. Reflex genomic testing of high-grade ovarian cancers and reflex immunohistochemistry in endometrial cancers will lead to greater recognition of germline-associated cancers. Approaches to processing surgical specimens, the recognition and classification of cancer precursor lesions, and differentiation from their mimics are discussed.

[Diagnosis and treatment of Lynch syndrome]. / Lynchin oireyhtymän diagnostiikka ja hoito.

Lynch syndrome (LS) refers to an autosomal dominant genetic predisposition to develop colon cancer or cancers or the uterine corpus, stomach, urinary tract, ovaries, small intestine, mammary gland or bile ducts at a young age. The predisposition to cancer is caused by a germline mutation in one of the genes of the mismatch repair (MMR) system. International recommendations suggest immunohistochemical analysis of tumor tissue from at least those having developed colorectal cancer or endometrial cancer at an age of less than 70 years. This would allow the selection of patients to be referred for gene testing as well as identification of mutation carriers, for whom a regular colonoscopy follow-up is arranged at an interval of 2 to 3 years.

[Challenges for Urologists in the Care of Patients with Lynch Syndrome: Example of A Patient with Muir-Torre Syndrome, A Subtype of Lynch Syndrome]. / Herausforderungen für den Urologen in der Betreuung von Patienten mit Lynch-Syndrom am Beispiel eines Patienten mit Muir Torre-Syndrom als Unterform des Lynch-Syndroms.

The Muir-Torre syndrome (MTS) is a subtype of the Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). In addition to tumours typically related to LS, MTS is associated with tumours of the sebaceous gland or keratoacanthoma. MTS is mostly characterised by a mutation of MSH2. In contrast to LS-associated tumours carrying a mutation of MLH1, MSH6 or PMS2, the frequency of urological neoplasms seems to be higher in Lynch syndrome patients with MSH2 mutation. Urological implications for the care of patients with LS or MTS include the early diagnosis of a possible hereditary background in patients presenting with urothelial cancers at an atypically young age and potentially the surveillance of carriers of mutations with an increased risk for urothelial cancers like males harbouring a MSH2 mutation. We report on a patient with various types of LS-associated cancers and cancers without a known association with LS, who died from multifocal metastasis of urothelial cancer. This case report shows that close interdisciplinary cooperation is mandatory for the treatment of patients with complex diseases.

Somatic aberrations of mismatch repair genes as a cause of microsatellite-unstable cancers.

Lynch syndrome (LS) is caused by germline mutations in mismatch repair (MMR) genes, resulting in microsatellite-unstable tumours. Approximately 35% of suspected LS (sLS) patients test negative for germline MMR gene mutations, hampering conclusive LS diagnosis. The aim of this study was to investigate somatic MMR gene aberrations in microsatellite-unstable colorectal and endometrial cancers of sLS patients negative for germline MMR gene mutations. Suspected LS cases were selected from a retrospective Clinical Genetics Department diagnostic cohort and from a prospective multicentre population-based study on LS in The Netherlands. In total, microsatellite-unstable tumours of 40 sLS patients (male/female 20/20, median age 57 years) were screened for somatic MMR gene mutations by next-generation sequencing. In addition, loss of heterozygosity (LOH) of the affected MMR genes in these tumours as well as in 68 LS-associated tumours and 27 microsatellite-unstable tumours with MLH1 promoter hypermethylation was studied. Of the sLS cases, 5/40 (13%) tumours had two pathogenic somatic mutations and 16/40 (40%) tumours had a (likely) pathogenic mutation and LOH. Overall, LOH of the affected MMR gene locus was observed in 24/39 (62%) tumours with informative LOH markers. Of the LS cases and the tumours with MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, 39/61 (64%) and 2/21 (10%) tumours, respectively, demonstrated LOH. Half of microsatellite-unstable tumours of sLS patients without germline MMR gene mutations had two (likely) deleterious somatic MMR gene aberrations, indicating their sporadic origin. Therefore, we advocate adding somatic mutation and LOH analysis of the MMR genes to the molecular diagnostic workflow of LS.

Síndrome de Lynch tipo II. Presentación de caso / Syndrome of Lynch type II. Case presentation

Fundamento: el cáncer colorrectal hereditario no ligado a la poliposis asociado a neoplasias extra intestinales se denomina S índrome de Lynch tipo 2 y su diagnóstico constituye un reto para el personal médico. Objetivo: propiciar mediante la presentación de un caso el pensamiento clínico y la actualización científica en esta entidad para efectuar un diagnóstico más oportuno. Presentación de caso: paciente de 49 años, ingresó por una masa palpable en fosa ilíaca izquierda e hipogastrio. Se realizó resección quirúrgica y se diagnosticó un cistadenocarcinoma mucinoso papilar de ovario para lo cual se le prescribió quimioterapia. Dos años más tarde se ingresó por dolor en hemiabdomen inferior, astenia, mareos y palidez cutáneo mucosa. Tras otra intervención quirúrgica se diagnosticó un adenocarcinoma de colon sigmoides. La paciente falleció posteriormente por un cuadro de sangramiento en sábana y fallo multiórganos. Conclusiones: b asado en los criterios de Ámsterdam y Bethesda se realizó el diagnóstico de un S índrome de Lynch tipo 2. P or la frecuencia de la variante hereditaria no polipósica dentro de los cánceres colorrectales se impone una valoración integral del paciente y un juicio clínico coherente para mejorar la certeza diagnóstica en un síndrome que no es infrecuente sino poco diagnosticado.

Background: hereditary colorectal cancer non-related to polyposis associated to extraintestinal neoplasias is called syndrome of Lynch type II and its diagnosis constitutes a challenge for medical staff. Objective: to make possible through a case presentation the clinical thought and the scientific up-dating in this entity to make a more accurate diagnosis. Case presentation: a forty -nine years old patient was admitted for a palpable mass on the left iliac fossa and hypogastrium. A surgical reception was carried out and a papillary mucinous cystadenocarcinoma of ovary was diagnosed for which chemotherapy was prescribed. Two years she was admitted for lower hemoabdomen pain, asthenia, dizziness and cutaneous mucosa paleness. After another surgery a sigmoid colon adenocarcinoma was diagnosed. Later the patient died due to a bleeding and multiorgan failure. Conclusions: based on the criteria of Amsterdam and Bethesda a diagnosis was made of a syndrome of Lynch type II. Due to the frequency of the non-polyposic hereditary variant of the colorectal cancers it is mandatory an integral evaluation of the patient and a coherent clinical judgment in order to improve the diagnostic certainty in a syndrome which is not infrequent but poorly diagnosed.

[Hereditary forms of ovarian cancer]. / Les formes héréditaires des cancers de l'ovaire.

Approximately 5 to 10 % of all ovarian cancers arise in the setting of a major genetic predisposition. The two main hereditary forms of ovarian adenocarcinomas are the hereditary breast/ovarian cancers associated with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation and the Lynch syndrome associated with a MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2 gene mutation. Their identification and the characterization of a causative germline mutation are crucial and have a major impact for affected women and their relatives in terms of medical management. The aim of this review is to indicate cancer risks associated with these two entities, to evaluate their contribution in the pathogenesis of ovarian cancers and to indicate the clinical data suggestive of these diagnoses, the validated indications for genetic analyses and the current management guidelines. We will also illustrate the diagnostic strategy by reporting a clinical observation.

[Muir-Torre syndrome--a phenotypic variant of Lynch syndrome]. / Muir-Torre syndrom--fenotypická varianta Lynchova syndromu.

Muir-Torre syndrome (MTS) represents an autosomal dominantly inherited condition and is considered a phenotypic variant of the more common hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome (HNPCC), or Lynch syndrome. MTS combines at least one cutaneous neoplasm with sebaceous differentiation (e.g. sebaceoma, sebaceous adenoma, and sebaceous carcinoma), and at least one visceral malignancy. MTS is a genetic disorder caused by a germline mutation in one of the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes. Tumors in MTS patients are characteristically associated with the loss of MMR protein expression and/or microsatellite instability (70%). Patients who are suspected to have MTS/Lynch syndrome are often identified by dermatologists, dermatopathologists/pathologists, gastroenterologists and gynecologists. If MTS is suspected on a clinicopathological ground, necessary additional laboratory investigations should be performed only in specialized pathological departments providing immunohistochemistry and molecular biologic analysis service.