Lynch syndrome: influence of additional susceptibility variants on cancer risk.

Some patients with Lynch syndrome (LS) have extreme phenotypes, i.e. cancer before the recommended screening age, or cancer for which there are no screening guidelines. We made the hypothesis that additional germline variants in cancer susceptibility genes (CSG) could explain some of these phenotypes. We compared the prevalence of additional CSG variants in LS patients with a cancer diagnosis before age 30 (early-onset, EO group) and after 40 (usual-onset, UO group). While there was no overall difference, we did find an excess of pathogenic variants and variants of unknown significance in EO cases when only gastrointestinal CSG were considered (OR 2.25; 95% CI: 1.01-5.06, p value = 0.04). Four EO cases stood out: two with POLE/POLD1 variants in the key exonuclease domain, one with a BMPR1A duplication and one with an EPCAM deletion. Additional germline variants should be considered in future screening recommendations, as they might influence cancer risk.

Clinical implications of CTNNA1 germline mutations in asymptomatic carriers.

In 2017, we implemented CTNNA1 germline analysis in probands suspected of having hereditary diffuse gastric cancer. Here, we report the results from a retrospective series of 41 cases, including the identification of a new family with a CTNNA1 mutation and the first prophylactic total gastrectomy in an asymptomatic carrier after a normal upper endoscopy. Diffuse gastric cancer foci with loss of catenin alpha-1 expression were seen in the resected tissue, suggesting that CTNNA1 and CDH1 germline mutations behave in a similar manner. Life-changing prophylactic total gastrectomy should therefore also be considered in CTNNA1 mutation carriers.

[Lynch syndrome: What is new?] / Syndrome de Lynch : quoi de neuf ?

Lynch syndrome is a genetic condition defined by a germline mutation of an MMR (MisMatch Repair) gene leading to a defective DNA MMR system. Therefore, it is characterized by the predisposition to a spectrum of cancers, primarily colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer (EC). Lynch syndrome-related CRC accounts for 3% of all CRC. Lynch syndrome also accounts for 2% of all EC. In case of Lynch syndrome, there is usually a familial history of cancer defined by the Amsterdam and Bethesda criteria. Diagnosis is made by tumor testing with (i) MMR immunohistochemistry and (ii) PCR for MSI (microsatellite instability), a genetic phenotype that characterizes these tumors. MSI can also be detected in sporadic tumors, through epigenetic events inactivating the MMR system. Progress in diagnosis and molecular biology has allowed for better identification of Lynch patients but also other rare genetic syndromes. MSI tumors can now benefit from new treatments such as immunotherapy which underlines the importance of their diagnosis. Finally, patients with Lynch syndrome as well as their relatives, undergo specific surveillance in order to prevent development of other cancers. This review will summarize the different aspects of Lynch syndrome and also focus on recent progress on the topic.

Comparison of anal cancer screening strategies including standard anoscopy, anal cytology, and HPV genotyping in HIV-positive men who have sex with men.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on screening strategy of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGAIN). Guidelines range from clinical examination with digital anorectal examination followed by standard anoscopy (SA), to anal cytology (Pap)+/- HPV genotyping. We compared screening strategy yields based on Pap, SA, and HPV-16 genotyping alone or in combination in HIV-MSM. METHODS: Pap, SA, and HPV-16 genotyping were performed in all HIV-MSM attending a first anal cancer screening consultation in Paris, France. High-resolution anoscopy, the gold standard to detect HGAIN, was performed in the case of HPV-16 positivity or abnormal cytology. Yield was defined as the number of patients with HGAIN relative to the total number of patients screened. RESULTS: On 212 patients, the complete strategy (SA + Pap + HPV genotyping) yield (12.7%) was significantly higher than that of SA (3.3%, p < 0.001) and HPV-16 alone (6.6%, p < 0.05). Although none of the other strategies were significantly different from the complete strategy, Pap + HPV-16 and Pap + SA had closer yields (about 11%), with OR = 0.83 (95% CI [0.44;1.57]) and 0.87 (95% CI [0.46;1.64]), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pap combined with HPV-16 genotyping or SA tended towards higher yields compared to Pap alone, and closer to that of the complete strategy.

Advances in management of adjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer: Consequences for clinical practice.

More than half the patients with rectal cancer present with locally advanced rectal disease at diagnosis with a high risk of recurrence. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy and standardized radical surgery with total mesorectal excision have been established as the 'gold standard' for treating these patients. Pathological staging using the ypTNM classification system to decide on adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) is widely used in clinical practice, but the delivery of ACT is still controversial, as many discrepancies persist in the conclusions of different trials, due to heterogeneity of the inclusion criteria between studies, lack of statistical power, and variations in preoperative and adjuvant regimens. In 2014, a meta-analysis of four randomized phase-III trials (EORTC 22921, I-CNR-RT, PROCTOR-SCRIPT, CHRONICLE) failed to demonstrate any statistical efficacy of fluorouracil (5FU)-based ACT. Three recent randomized trials aimed to compare 5FU with 5FU plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Two of them (ADORE, CAO/ARO/AIO-04) appeared to find a disease-free survival benefit for patients treated with the combination therapy. Thus, while awaiting new data, it can be said that, as of 2015, patients with yp stage I tumors or histological complete response derived no benefit from adjuvant therapy. On the other hand, the FOLFOX chemotherapy regimen should be proposed for yp stage III patients, and may be considered for yp stage II tumors in fit patients with high-risk factors. Nevertheless, well-designed and sufficiently powered clinical trials dedicated to adjuvant treatments for rectal cancer remain justified in future to achieve a high level of proof in keeping with evidence-based medical standards.

Functional TP53 mutations have no impact on response to cytotoxic agents in metastatic colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Survival of metastatic colon cancer (mCC) patients has considerably improved with optimization of new drugs regimen. Inactivation of TP53 pathway by TP53 mutations is observed in nearly half of colorectal tumors. The impact of such mutations has been poorly studied in the metastatic setting. METHODS: The files of 254 mCC treated in a single institution at Saint-Louis hospital between January 1999 and April 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Tissue samples for analysis of TP53 mutations were available for 68 patients, performed using FASAY. The prognostic value of TP53 status was evaluated by comparing progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the group of TP53-mutated and wild type patients. RESULTS: PFS was 6.9 months and OS 21.7 months in the whole population. There was no statistical difference in TP53-mutated and wild type groups in term of PFS (HR=1.04; IC 95%=0.6-1.79) and OS (HR=0.99; IC 95%=0.53-1.55) whatever the chemotherapy regimen (oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based). Only BRAF V600 mutation was demonstrated to be a poor prognostic factor for PFS and OS, and CEA level for OS. CONCLUSIONS: Routine determination of TP53 mutations, even with a highly sensitive method, cannot be recommended to predict chemotherapy response in mCC.