[Comprehensive assessment of mismatch repair and microsatellite instability status in molecular classification of endometrial carcinoma].

Objective: To explore the concordance and causes of different mismatch repair (MMR) and microsatellite instability (MSI) detection results in endometrial carcinoma (EC) molecular typing. Methods: A total of 214 EC patients diagnosed from January 2021 to April 2023 were selected at the Department of Pathology, Peking University Third Hospital. The immunohistochemistry (IHC) results of MMR protein were reviewed. Tumor specific somatic mutations, MMR germline mutations, microsatellite scores and tumor mutation burden (TMB) were detected by next-generation sequencing (NGS) with multi-gene panel. Methylation-specific PCR was used to detect the methylation status of MLH1 gene promoter in cases with deficient MLH1 protein expression. In cases with discrepant results between MMR-IHC and MSI-NGS, the MSI status was detected again by PCR (MSI-PCR), and the molecular typing was determined by combining the results of TMB and MLH1 gene promoter methylation. Results: (1) In this study, there were 22 cases of POLE gene mutation subtype, 55 cases of mismatch repair deficient (MMR-d) subtype, 29 cases of p53 abnormal subtype, and 108 cases of no specific molecular profile (NSMP). The median age at diagnosis of MMR-d subtype (54 years old) and the proportion of aggressive histological types (40.0%, 22/55) were higher than those of NSMP subtype [50 years old and 12.0% (13/108) respectively; all P<0.05]. (2) Among 214 patients, MMR-IHC test showed that 153 patients were mismatch repair proficient (MMR-p), 49 patients were MMR-d, and 12 patients were difficult to evaluate directly. MSI-NGS showed that 164 patients were microsatellite stable (MSS; equal to MMR-p), 48 patients were high microsatellite instability (MSI-H; equal to MMR-d), and 2 patients had no MSI-NGS results because the effective sequencing depth did not meet the quality control. The overall concordance between MMR-IHC and MSI-NGS was 94.3% (200/212). All the 12 discrepant cases were MMR-d or subclonal loss of MMR protein by IHC, but MSS by NGS. Among them, 10 cases were loss or subclonal loss of MLH1 and (or) PMS2 protein. Three discrepant cases were classified as POLE gene mutation subtype. In the remaining 9 cases, 5 cases and 3 cases were confirmed as MSI-H and low microsatellite instability (MSI-L) respectively by MSI-PCR, 6 cases were detected as MLH1 gene promoter methylation and 7 cases demonstrated high TMB (>10 mutations/Mb). These 9 cases were classified as MMR-d EC. (3) Lynch syndrome was diagnosed in 27.3% (15/55) of all 55 MMR-d EC cases, and the TMB of EC with MSH2 and (or) MSH6 protein loss or associated with Lynch syndrome [(71.0±26.2) and (71.5±20.1) mutations/Mb respectively] were significantly higher than those of EC with MLH1 and (or) PMS2 loss or sporadic MMR-d EC [(38.2±19.1) and (41.9±24.3) mutations/Mb respectively, all P<0.01]. The top 10 most frequently mutated genes in MMR-d EC were PTEN (85.5%, 47/55), ARID1A (80.0%, 44/55), PIK3CA (69.1%, 38/55), KMT2B (60.0%, 33/55), CTCF (45.5%, 25/55), RNF43 (40.0%, 22/55), KRAS (36.4%, 20/55), CREBBP (34.5%, 19/55), LRP1B (32.7%, 18/55) and BRCA2 (32.7%, 18/55). Concurrent PTEN, ARID1A and PIK3CA gene mutations were found in 50.9% (28/55) of MMR-d EC patients. Conclusions: The concordance of MMR-IHC and MSI-NGS in EC is relatively high.The discordance in a few MMR-d EC are mostly found in cases with MLH1 and (or) PMS2 protein loss or MMR protein subclonal staining caused by MLH1 gene promoter hypermethylation. In order to provide accurate molecular typing for EC patients, MLH1 gene methylation, MSI-PCR, MMR gene germline mutation and TMB should be combined to comprehensively evaluate MMR and MSI status.

The predicted effect and cost-effectiveness of tailoring colonoscopic surveillance according to mismatch repair gene in patients with Lynch syndrome.

PURPOSE: Lynch syndrome-related colorectal cancer (CRC) risk substantially varies by mismatch repair (MMR) gene. We evaluated the health impact and cost-effectiveness of MMR gene-tailored colonoscopic surveillance. METHODS: We first estimated sex- and MMR gene-specific cumulative lifetime risk of first CRC without colonoscopic surveillance using an optimization algorithm. Next, we harnessed these risk estimates in a microsimulation model, "Policy1-Lynch," and compared 126 colonoscopic surveillance strategies against no surveillance. RESULTS: The most cost-effective strategy was 3-yearly surveillance from age 25 to 70 years (pathogenic variants [path_] in MLH1 [path_MLH1], path_MSH2) with delayed surveillance for path_MSH6 (age 30-70 years) and path_PMS2 (age 35-70 years) heterozygotes (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = Australian dollars (A) $8,833/life-year saved). This strategy averted 60 CRC deaths (153 colonoscopies per death averted) over the lifetime of 1000 confirmed patients with Lynch syndrome (vs no surveillance). This also reduced colonoscopies by 5% without substantial change in health outcomes (vs nontailored 3-yearly surveillance from 25-70 years). Generally, starting surveillance at age 25 (vs 20) years was more cost-effective with minimal effect on life-years saved and starting 5 to 10 years later for path_MSH6 and path_PMS2 heterozygotes (vs path_MLH1 and path_MSH2) further improved cost-effectiveness. Surveillance end age (70/75/80 years) had a minor effect. Three-yearly surveillance strategies were more cost-effective (vs 1 or 2-yearly) but prevented 3 fewer CRC deaths. CONCLUSION: MMR gene-specific colonoscopic surveillance would be effective and cost-effective.

Assessment of a Polygenic Risk Score for Colorectal Cancer to Predict Risk of Lynch Syndrome Colorectal Cancer.

It was not known whether the polygenic risk scores (PRSs) that predict colorectal cancer could predict colorectal cancer for people with inherited pathogenic variants in DNA mismatch repair genes-people with Lynch syndrome. We tested a PRS comprising 107 established single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with colorectal cancer in European populations for 826 European-descent carriers of pathogenic variants in DNA mismatch repair genes (293 MLH1, 314 MSH2, 126 MSH6, 71 PMS2, and 22 EPCAM) from the Colon Cancer Family Registry, of whom 504 had colorectal cancer. There was no evidence of an association between the PRS and colorectal cancer risk, irrespective of which DNA mismatch repair gene was mutated, or sex (all 2-sided P > .05). The hazard ratio per standard deviation of the PRS for colorectal cancer was 0.97 (95% confidence interval = 0.88 to 1.06; 2-sided P = .51). Whereas PRSs are predictive of colorectal cancer in the general population, they do not predict Lynch syndrome colorectal cancer.

Gene-Specific Variation in Colorectal Cancer Surveillance Strategies for Lynch Syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lynch syndrome is associated with pathogenic variants in 4 mismatch repair (MMR) genes that increase lifetime risk of colorectal cancer. Guidelines recommend intensive colorectal cancer surveillance with colonoscopy every 1-2 years starting at age 25 years for all carriers of Lynch syndrome-associated variants, regardless of gene product. We constructed a simulation model to analyze the effects of different ages of colonoscopy initiation and surveillance intervals for each MMR gene (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, quality-adjusted life-years, and cost. METHODS: Using published literature, we developed a Markov simulation model of Lynch syndrome progression for patients with each MMR variant. The model simulated clinical trials of Lynch syndrome carriers, varying age of colonoscopy initiation (5-year increments from 25-40 years), and surveillance intervals (1-5 years). We assessed the optimal strategy for each gene, defined as the strategy with the highest quality-adjusted life-years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below a $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. RESULTS: Optimal surveillance for patients with pathogenic variants in the MLH1 and MSH2 genes was colonoscopy starting at age 25 years, with 1- to 2-year surveillance intervals. Initiating colonoscopy at age 35 and 40 years, with 3-year intervals, was cost-effective for patients with pathogenic variants in MSH6 or PMS2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a simulation model to select optimal surveillance starting ages and intervals for patients with Lynch syndrome based on MMR variant. The model supports recommendations for intensive surveillance of patients with Lynch syndrome-associated variants in MLH1 or MSH2. However, for patients with Lynch syndrome-associated variants of MSH6 or PMS2, later initiation of surveillance at 35 and 40 years, respectively, and at 3-year intervals, can be considered.

Efficacy of paired tumor and germline testing in evaluation of patients with Lynch-like syndrome in a large integrated healthcare setting.

Patients with mismatch repair (MMR) deficient colorectal cancer (CRC) without detectable germline pathogenic variants (PVs) or likely pathogenic variants (LPVs) in MMR genes are often labeled as Lynch-like syndrome (LLS). We sought to evaluate the efficacy of paired tumor and germline testing in risk stratification of patients with LLS in a large, community-based, integrated healthcare setting. Through the universal screening program for Lynch syndrome at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, we identified all patients with MMR deficient colorectal tumors without detectable germline PVs or LPVs between April 2011 and October 2018. These patients were categorized as LLS and were offered paired tumor and germline testing. Risk stratification and patient management were assessed upon completion of all testing. Of the 50 patients with LLS who underwent paired tumor and germline testing, 62% (n = 31) were categorized as sporadic, 6% (n = 3) had Lynch syndrome, and 32% (n = 16) remained inconclusive. Among the sporadic cases, 65% (n = 20) had a PV (n = 18) or LPV (n = 2) in combination with loss of heterozygosity while 35% (n = 11) had two somatic PVs/LPVs involving the same MMR gene. Our findings showed paired tumor and germline testing resolved the etiology in the majority of patients and is a valuable strategy in risk stratification and management of patients with LLS. Further studies are needed to assess the optimal application of paired testing in different practice settings, particularly with evolving technology and decreasing cost of molecular sequencing.

Assessment of mismatch repair deficiency, CDX2, beta-catenin and E-cadherin expression in colon cancer: molecular characteristics and impact on prognosis and survival - an immunohistochemical study.

Microsatellite instability (MSI) or the deficiency of mismatch repair (MMR) proteins is one of the molecular pathways of colorectal tumorigenesis and may have important clinical implications in predicting the treatment response. We evaluated the relationship between clinicopathological features and MMR proteins [mutL homologue 1 (MLH1), mutS homologue 2 (MSH2), mutS homologue 6 (MSH6), postmeiotic segregation increased 2 (PMS2)], adhesion molecules (E-cadherin, beta-catenin) and caudal-type homeobox 2 (CDX2) in 31 patients with colon adenocarcinoma, using immunohistochemistry. We also aimed to assess the prognostic value of the studied proteins. MLH1 loss was correlated to PMS2 loss (p=0.006) and MSH2 loss (p=0.023); MSH2 loss was significantly associated to MSH6 loss (p=0.011). Tumors with MSH6 loss, together with tumors with PMS2 loss, covered all the patients with MSI status. We found a significant correlation between MSI tumors and mucinous histological type (p=0.03), but no significant associations with other clinicopathological features or with survival rate. There was a significant correlation between E-cadherin expression and differentiation degree (p=0.018) and between beta-catenin expression and lymph node invasion (p=0.046). No significant association between CDX2 loss and any clinical or pathological features was found (p>0.05). No significant differences were identified in overall survival according to E-cadherin, beta-catenin or CDX2 expression (p>0.05). In our study, PMS2 loss was significantly correlated with CDX2 loss (p=0.03). In conclusion, the molecular analysis of biological markers for colon cancer may be important for patient stratification, in order to select the optimal treatment algorithm. Our results suggest that probably the double panel (MSH6 and PMS2) is enough to detect the MSI status, instead of using the quadruple panel.

Assessment of Tumor Sequencing as a Replacement for Lynch Syndrome Screening and Current Molecular Tests for Patients With Colorectal Cancer.

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.

Clinical verification of genetic results returned to research participants: findings from a Colon Cancer Family Registry.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which participants act to clinically verify research results is largely unknown. This study examined whether participants who received Lynch syndrome (LS)-related findings pursued researchers' recommendation to clinically verify results with testing performed by a CLIA-certified laboratory. METHODS: The Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center site of the multinational Colon Cancer Family Registry offered non-CLIA individual genetic research results to select registry participants (cases and their enrolled relatives) from 2011 to 2013. Participants who elected to receive results were counseled on the importance of verifying results at a CLIA-certified laboratory. Twenty-six (76.5%) of the 34 participants who received genetic results completed 2- and 12-month postdisclosure surveys; 42.3% of these (11/26) participated in a semistructured follow-up interview. RESULTS: Within 12 months of result disclosure, only 4 (15.4%) of 26 participants reported having verified their results in a CLIA-certified laboratory; of these four cases, all research and clinical results were concordant. Reasons for pursuing clinical verification included acting on the recommendation of the research team and informing future clinical care. Those who did not verify results cited lack of insurance coverage and limited perceived personal benefit of clinical verification as reasons for inaction. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest researchers will need to address barriers to seeking clinical verification in order to ensure that the intended benefits of returning genetic research results are realized.

Development and Validation of the PREMM5 Model for Comprehensive Risk Assessment of Lynch Syndrome.

Purpose Current Lynch syndrome (LS) prediction models quantify the risk to an individual of carrying a pathogenic germline mutation in three mismatch repair (MMR) genes: MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6. We developed a new prediction model, PREMM5, that incorporates the genes PMS2 and EPCAM to provide comprehensive LS risk assessment. Patients and Methods PREMM5 was developed to predict the likelihood of a mutation in any of the LS genes by using polytomous logistic regression analysis of clinical and germline data from 18,734 individuals who were tested for all five genes. Predictors of mutation status included sex, age at genetic testing, and proband and family cancer histories. Discrimination was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and clinical impact was determined by decision curve analysis; comparisons were made to the existing PREMM1,2,6 model. External validation of PREMM5 was performed in a clinic-based cohort of 1,058 patients with colorectal cancer. Results Pathogenic mutations were detected in 1,000 (5%) of 18,734 patients in the development cohort; mutations included MLH1 (n = 306), MSH2 (n = 354), MSH6 (n = 177), PMS2 (n = 141), and EPCAM (n = 22). PREMM5 distinguished carriers from noncarriers with an AUC of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.82), and performance was similar in the validation cohort (AUC, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.92). Prediction was more difficult for PMS2 mutations (AUC, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.68) than for other genes. Performance characteristics of PREMM5 exceeded those of PREMM1,2,6. Decision curve analysis supported germline LS testing for PREMM5 scores ≥ 2.5%. Conclusion PREMM5 provides comprehensive risk estimation of all five LS genes and supports LS genetic testing for individuals with scores ≥ 2.5%. At this threshold, PREMM5 provides performance that is superior to the existing PREMM1,2,6 model in the identification of carriers of LS, including those with weaker phenotypes and individuals unaffected by cancer.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Different Genetic Testing Strategies for Lynch Syndrome in Taiwan.

Patients with Lynch syndrome (LS) have a significantly increased risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) and other cancers. Genetic screening for LS among patients with newly diagnosed CRC aims to identify mutations in the disease-causing genes (i.e., the DNA mismatch repair genes) in the patients, to offer genetic testing for relatives of the patients with the mutations, and then to provide early prevention for the relatives with the mutations. Several genetic tests are available for LS, such as DNA sequencing for MMR genes and tumor testing using microsatellite instability and immunohistochemical analyses. Cost-effectiveness analyses of different genetic testing strategies for LS have been performed in several studies from different countries such as the US and Germany. However, a cost-effectiveness analysis for the testing has not yet been performed in Taiwan. In this study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of four genetic testing strategies for LS described in previous studies, while population-specific parameters, such as the mutation rates of the DNA mismatch repair genes and treatment costs for CRC in Taiwan, were used. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based on discounted life years gained due to genetic screening were calculated for the strategies relative to no screening and to the previous strategy. Using the World Health Organization standard, which was defined based on Taiwan's Gross Domestic Product per capita, the strategy based on immunohistochemistry as a genetic test followed by BRAF mutation testing was considered to be highly cost-effective relative to no screening. Our probabilistic sensitivity analysis results also suggest that the strategy has a probability of 0.939 of being cost-effective relative to no screening based on the commonly used threshold of $50,000 to determine cost-effectiveness. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first cost-effectiveness analysis for evaluating different genetic testing strategies for LS in Taiwan. The results will be informative for the government when considering offering screening for LS in patients newly diagnosed with CRC.

Universal Versus Targeted Screening for Lynch Syndrome: Comparing Ascertainment and Costs Based on Clinical Experience.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to screen colorectal cancers (CRCs) for Lynch syndrome are evolving rapidly; the optimal strategy remains uncertain. AIM: We compared targeted versus universal screening of CRCs for Lynch syndrome. METHODS: In 2010-2011, we employed targeted screening (age < 60 and/or Bethesda criteria). From 2012 to 2014, we screened all CRCs. Immunohistochemistry for the four mismatch repair proteins was done in all cases, followed by other diagnostic studies as indicated. We modeled the diagnostic costs of detecting Lynch syndrome and estimated the 5-year costs of preventing CRC by colonoscopy screening, using a system dynamics model. RESULTS: Using targeted screening, 51/175 (29 %) cancers fit criteria and were tested by immunohistochemistry; 15/51 (29 %, or 8.6 % of all CRCs) showed suspicious loss of ≥1 mismatch repair protein. Germline mismatch repair gene mutations were found in 4/4 cases sequenced (11 suspected cases did not have germline testing). Using universal screening, 17/292 (5.8 %) screened cancers had abnormal immunohistochemistry suspicious for Lynch syndrome. Germline mismatch repair mutations were found in only 3/10 cases sequenced (7 suspected cases did not have germline testing). The mean cost to identify Lynch syndrome probands was ~$23,333/case for targeted screening and ~$175,916/case for universal screening at our institution. Estimated costs to identify and screen probands and relatives were: targeted, $9798/case and universal, $38,452/case. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world Lynch syndrome management, incomplete clinical follow-up was the major barrier to do genetic testing. Targeted screening costs 2- to 7.5-fold less than universal and rarely misses Lynch syndrome cases. Future changes in testing costs will likely change the optimal algorithm.