RESUMO
Importance: Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome (LS) in colorectal cancer (CRC) is recommended and involves up to 6 sequential tests. Somatic gene testing is performed on stage IV CRCs for treatment determination. The diagnostic workup for patients with CRC could be simplified and improved using a single up-front tumor next-generation sequencing test if it has higher sensitivity and specificity than the current screening protocol. Objective: To determine whether up-front tumor sequencing (TS) could replace the current multiple sequential test approach for universal tumor screening for LS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Tumor DNA from 419 consecutive CRC cases undergoing standard universal tumor screening and germline genetic testing when indicated as part of the multicenter, population-based Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative from October 2015 through February 2016 (the prospective cohort) and 46 patients with CRC known to have LS due to a germline mutation in a mismatch repair gene from January 2013 through September 2015 (the validation cohort) underwent blinded TS. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity of TS compared with microsatellite instability (MSI) testing and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining for the detection of LS. Results: In the 465 patients, mean age at diagnosis was 59.9 years (range, 20-96 years), and 241 (51.8%) were female. Tumor sequencing identified all 46 known LS cases from the validation cohort and an additional 12 LS cases from the 419-member prospective cohort. Testing with MSI or IHC, followed by BRAF p.V600E testing missed 5 and 6 cases of LS, respectively. Tumor sequencing alone had better sensitivity (100%; 95% CI, 93.8%-100%) than IHC plus BRAF (89.7%; 95% CI, 78.8%-96.1%; P = .04) and MSI plus BRAF (91.4%; 95% CI, 81.0%-97.1%; P = .07). Tumor sequencing had equal specificity (95.3%; 95% CI, 92.6%-97.2%) to IHC plus BRAF (94.6%; 95% CI, 91.9%-96.6%; P > .99) and MSI plus BRAF (94.8%; 95% CI, 92.2%-96.8%; P = .88). Tumor sequencing identified 284 cases with KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF mutations that could affect therapy for stage IV CRC, avoiding another test. Finally, TS identified 8 patients with germline DPYD mutations that confer toxicity to fluorouracil chemotherapy, which could also be useful for treatment selection. Conclusions and Relevance: Up-front TS in CRC is simpler and has superior sensitivity to current multitest approaches to LS screening, while simultaneously providing critical information for treatment selection.
Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais Hereditárias sem Polipose/genética , Neoplasias Colorretais/genética , DNA de Neoplasias/análise , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Genes Neoplásicos , Testes Genéticos/métodos , Análise de Sequência de DNA , Neoplasias Colorretais/química , Neoplasias Colorretais Hereditárias sem Polipose/diagnóstico , Ilhas de CpG , Metilação de DNA , Reparo de Erro de Pareamento de DNA/genética , DNA de Neoplasias/genética , Proteínas de Ligação a DNA/genética , Mutação em Linhagem Germinativa , Humanos , Imuno-Histoquímica , Instabilidade de Microssatélites , Endonuclease PMS2 de Reparo de Erro de Pareamento/genética , Proteína 1 Homóloga a MutL/genética , Proteína 2 Homóloga a MutS/genética , Regiões Promotoras Genéticas , Proteínas Proto-Oncogênicas B-raf/genética , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Método Simples-CegoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome confers a hereditary predisposition to colorectal and other cancers. Universal tumor screening (UTS) for Lynch syndrome is recommended by several professional societies, but the implementation can be complex. This article describes the evaluation, process development, and initiation of Lynch syndrome UTS at a tertiary referral cancer center. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team developed the new process design. Issues in 5 themes were noted: timing, funding, second-opinion patients, result processing, and the role of genetics providers. A committee approach was used to examine each issue for process-improvement development. RESULTS: The issues related to testing were addressed individually for the successful implementation of UTS at the institutional level. In the conventional-care period, 9 of 30 cases (30%) received Lynch syndrome screening, and 4 cases were referred to medical genetics. During the 6 months following the implementation of UTS, 32 of 44 patients (73%) received Lynch syndrome screening. The 13 unscreened patients all had identified reasons for nonscreening (eg, financial limitations). Ten patients were referred to medical genetics, which identified no new cases of Lynch syndrome, but a low-risk adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) variant was detected in 1 individual. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of effective Lynch syndrome UTS can feasibly alter practice at the institutional level. This experience with the assessment and management of issues relevant to the successful implementation of a new clinical care paradigm based on emerging technology has implications for the uptake of advances across molecular oncology into clinical practice, and this is highly relevant in the current era of rapidly evolving genomic technology.