Surveillance Compliance and Quality of Life Assessment Among Surgical Patients with Familial Adenomatous Polyposis Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) syndrome has a near-100% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer. Early surveillance and prophylactic surgery have been advocated to reduce this risk. However, the surveillance practices among FAP individuals in Saudi Arabia are unknown. We aimed to explore surveillance compliance in our population, as well as the disease impact on their quality of life (QoL). METHODS: All patients with FAP who underwent surgical resection at King Saud University Medical City between 2016 and 2022 were included. Demographic data, clinical features, family history, and compliance with surveillance were collected and analyzed. QoL questionnaires: Short-form health survey (SF-36) and European Organization for Research and Treatment (EORTC) were conducted by phone interview. RESULTS: A total of 14 patients were included with an average age of 25 years. Three patients (21.4%) were the first of their family members to develop FAP. Nine patients (64%) were untested for genetic mutation due to lack of referral to geneticists. The compliance rate toward both pre-operative colonoscopy and upper endoscopy were 78%. However, 38% and 27% compliance rates were observed toward initial and post-operative colonoscopy, respectively. The compliance rate was 14% toward thyroid ultrasound. QoL scores varied among patients, with a mean score above 60 across all SF-36 domains. CONCLUSION: An overall poor compliance was observed among our participants, particularly toward thyroid ultrasound. Increased health awareness and patient education are essential. In addition, the importance of surveillance and genetic counseling should be emphasized among physicians treating these patients.

Serrated polyposis syndrome; epidemiology and management.

Serrated colorectal polyps, long considered innocent, are currently recognized as the precursors to one-third of all colorectal cancers (CRC). Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS), characterized by accumulation of multiple and/or large serrated polyps, symbolizes the highest expression of serrated pathway of carcinogenesis, leading to a high risk of CRC when it is not detected or treated on time. Although previously considered uncommon, SPS is now acknowledged as the most prevalent colorectal polyposis. This syndrome has attracted increasing interest over the past decade and has become a hot topic in the field of gastrointestinal oncology. Besides a small proportion of cases caused by germline mutations in RNF43, no clear genetic cause has been identified. Both epigenetic and environmental factors, especially smoking, have been related to this syndrome, but the etiology of SPS remains uncertain and diagnosis is based on endoscopic criteria. Recent studies on SPS have focused on identifying the underlying risk-factors for CRC, defining the best endoscopic techniques for surveillance and establishing optimal preventive strategies aimed at reducing CRC-incidence without exposing patients to unnecessary procedures. The purpose of this chapter is to review, from a practical perspective, current knowledge and future directions in the diagnosis and management of serrated polyposis syndrome.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Version 1.2021.

Identifying individuals with hereditary syndromes allows for timely cancer surveillance, opportunities for risk reduction, and syndrome-specific management. Establishing criteria for hereditary cancer risk assessment allows for the identification of individuals who are carriers of pathogenic genetic variants. The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal provides recommendations for the assessment and management of patients at risk for or diagnosed with high-risk colorectal cancer syndromes. The NCCN Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal panel meets annually to evaluate and update their recommendations based on their clinical expertise and new scientific data. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)/attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis (AFAP) syndrome and considerations for management of duodenal neoplasia.

Paediatric polyposis syndromes: burden of disease and current concepts.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Polyposis syndromes are rare but significant entities that often present during childhood and adolescence. Polyposis syndromes should remain high on the differential diagnoses for any child presenting with rectal bleeding, protein-losing enteropathy or intussusception in the setting of multiple polyps in the gastrointestinal tract. There are three primary paediatric polyposis syndromes: Juvenile polyposis syndrome (JPS), Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS). This review will cover recent guidelines for these conditions and advances in genetic testing. RECENT FINDINGS: The first set of paediatric guidelines were released in 2019 by the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) for FAP, JPS and PJS. Even with advances in genetic testing, a significant proportion of patients with polyposis syndromes have no identifiable genetic mutations. Recent research has shown that polyps behave differently in patients with and without disease-causing variants, emphasizing the role of genetic testing in the diagnosis and management of polyposis syndromes. SUMMARY: Polyposis syndromes in the paediatric population are growing due to increased recognition and advances in genetic testing. A timely diagnosis and surveillance of a paediatric polyposis syndrome are pivotal for the management of disease burden and early identification of cancers within the gastrointestinal tract and beyond. Paediatricians, paediatric gastroenterologists, paediatric oncologists and paediatric surgeons should be familiar with the presentation and comorbidities of polyposis syndromes in children and adolescents. Further research into genotype-phenotype correlations is needed to tailor the care for paediatric patients with polyposis syndromes.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal, Version 2.2019.

Identifying individuals with hereditary syndromes allows for improved cancer surveillance, risk reduction, and optimized management. Establishing criteria for assessment allows for the identification of individuals who are carriers of pathogenic genetic variants. The NCCN Guidelines for Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Colorectal provide recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with high-risk colorectal cancer syndromes. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on criteria for the evaluation of Lynch syndrome and considerations for use of multigene testing in the assessment of hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes.

Clinical exome sequencing vs. usual care for hereditary colorectal cancer diagnosis: A pilot comparative effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical exome sequencing (CES) provides the advantage of assessing genetic variation across the human exome compared to a traditional stepwise diagnostic approach or multi-gene panels. Comparative effectiveness research methods offer an approach to better understand the patient-centered and economic outcomes of CES. PURPOSE: To evaluate CES compared to usual care (UC) in the diagnostic work-up of inherited colorectal cancer/polyposis (CRCP) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: The primary outcome was clinical sensitivity for the diagnosis of inherited CRCP; secondary outcomes included psychosocial outcomes, family communication, and healthcare resource utilization. Participants were surveyed 2 and 4 weeks after results return and at 3-month intervals up to 1 year. RESULTS: Evolving outcome measures and standard of care presented critical challenges. The majority of participants in the UC arm received multi-gene panels [94.73%]. Rates of genetic findings supporting the diagnosis of hereditary CRCP were 7.5% [7/93] vs. 5.4% [5/93] in the CES and UC arms, respectively (P = 0.28). Differences in privacy concerns after receiving CRCP results were identified (0.88 in UC vs 0.38 in CES, P = 0.05); however, healthcare resource utilization, family communication and psychosocial outcomes were similar between the two arms. More participants with positive results (17.7%) intended to change their life insurance 1  month after the first return visit compared to participants returned a variant of uncertain significance (9.1%) or negative result (4.8%) (P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that CES provides similar clinical benefits to multi-gene panels in the diagnosis of hereditary CRCP.

Contribution to colonic polyposis of recently proposed predisposing genes and assessment of the prevalence of NTHL1- and MSH3-associated polyposes.

Technological advances have allowed the identification of new adenomatous and serrated polyposis genes, and of several candidate genes that require additional supporting evidence of causality. Through an exhaustive literature review and mutational screening of 177 unrelated polyposis patients, we assessed the involvement of MCM9, FOCAD, POLQ, and RNF43 in the predisposition to (nonserrated) colonic polyposis, as well as the prevalence of NTHL1 and MSH3 mutations among genetically unexplained polyposis patients. Our results, together with previously reported data and mutation frequency in controls, indicate that: MCM9 and POLQ mutations are not associated with polyposis; germline RNF43 mutations, with a prevalence of 1.5-2.5% among serrated polyposis patients, do not cause nonserrated polyposis; MSH3 biallelic mutations are highly infrequent among European polyposis patients, and the prevalence of NTHL1 biallelic mutations among unexplained polyposes is ~2%. Although nonsignificant, FOCAD predicted deleterious variants are overrepresented in polyposis patients compared to controls, warranting larger studies to provide definite evidence in favor or against their causal association with polyposis predisposition.

The cost-saving effect of centralized histological reviews with soft tissue and visceral sarcomas, GIST, and desmoid tumors: The experiences of the pathologists of the French Sarcoma Group.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the types of discordance occurring in the diagnosis of soft tissue and visceral sarcomas, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), and desmoid tumors, as well as the economic impact of diagnostic discrepancies. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective, multicenter analysis using prospectively implemented databases performed on a cohort of patients within the French RRePS network in 2010. Diagnoses were deemed to be discordant based on the 2013 World Health Organization (WHO) classification. Predictive factors of discordant diagnoses were explored. A decision tree was used to assess the expected costs of two strategies of disease management: one based on revised diagnoses after centralized histological review (option 1), the other on diagnoses without centralized review (option 2). Both were defined based on the patient and the disease characteristics, according to national or international guidelines. The time horizon was 12 months and the perspective of the French National Health Insurance (NHI) was retained. Costs were expressed in Euros for 2013. Sensitivity analyses were performed using low and high scenarios that included ± 20% estimates for cost. RESULTS: A total of 2,425 patients were included. Three hundred forty-one patients (14%) had received discordant diagnoses. These discordances were determined to mainly be benign tumors diagnosed as sarcomas (n = 124), or non-sarcoma malignant tumors diagnosed as sarcomas (n = 77). The probability of discordance was higher for a final diagnosis of desmoid tumors when compared to liposarcomas (odds ratio = 5.1; 95%CI [2.6-10.4]). The expected costs per patient for the base-case analysis (low- and high-case scenarios) amounted to €8,791 (€7,033 and €10,549, respectively) for option 1 and €8,904 (€7,057 and €10,750, respectively) for option 2. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight misdiagnoses of sarcomas, which were found to most often be confused with benign tumors. Centralized histological reviews are likely to provide cost-savings for the French NHI.

Dispelling misconceptions in the management of familial adenomatous polyposis.

Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis require surgical intervention at some point in their lives. The diagnosis is often apparent from their phenotype and family history, however, this is not always the case. Many factors can influence the surgical strategy although the polyposis burden and distribution remain the main consideration. While prophylactic removal of the rectum and colon is often required, sparing the rectum at the index surgery is safe in select patients. This article aims to dispel misconceptions in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.

Familial adenomatous polyposis in pediatrics: natural history, emerging surveillance and management protocols, chemopreventive strategies, and areas of ongoing debate.

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a hereditary condition with a near 100 % lifetime risk of colorectal cancer without prophylactic colectomy. Most patients with FAP have a mutation in the adenomatous polyposis coli gene on chromosome 5q22. This condition frequently presents in children with polyps developing most frequently in the second decade of life and surveillance colonoscopy is required starting at age ten. Polyps are found not only in the colon, but in the stomach and duodenum. Knowledge of the natural history of FAP is important as there are several extra-colonic sequelae which also require surveillance. In infants and toddlers, there is an increased risk of hepatoblastoma, while in teenagers and adults duodenal carcinomas, desmoid tumors, thyroid cancer and medulloblastoma are more common in FAP than in the general population. Current chemopreventive strategies include several medications and natural products, although to this point there is no consensus on the most efficacious and safe agent. Genetic counseling is an important part of the diagnostic process for FAP. Appropriate use and interpretation of genetic testing is best accomplished with genetic counselor involvement as many families also have concerns regarding future insurability or discrimination when faced with genetic testing.

Next-Generation Sequencing Panels for the Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer and Polyposis Syndromes: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and polyposis (CRCP) syndromes in patients referred to cancer genetics clinics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We developed a decision model to evaluate NGS panel testing compared with current standard of care in patients referred to a cancer genetics clinic. We obtained data on the prevalence of genetic variants from a large academic laboratory and calculated the costs and health benefits of identifying relatives with a pathogenic variant, in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We classified the CRCP syndromes according to their type of inheritance and penetrance of colorectal cancer. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty. RESULTS: Evaluation with an NGS panel that included Lynch syndrome genes and other genes associated with highly penetrant CRCP syndromes led to an average increase of 0.151 year of life, 0.128 QALY, and $4,650 per patient, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,500 per QALY compared with standard care and a 99% probability that this panel was cost effective at a threshold of $100,000 per QALY. When compared with this panel, the addition of genes with low colorectal cancer penetrance resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $77,300 per QALY. CONCLUSION: The use of an NGS panel that includes genes associated with highly penetrant CRCP syndromes in addition to Lynch syndrome genes as a first-line test is likely to provide meaningful clinical benefits in a cost-effective manner at a $100,000 per QALY threshold.

Comparative effectiveness of next generation genomic sequencing for disease diagnosis: design of a randomized controlled trial in patients with colorectal cancer/polyposis syndromes.

Whole exome and whole genome sequencing are applications of next generation sequencing transforming clinical care, but there is little evidence whether these tests improve patient outcomes or if they are cost effective compared to current standard of care. These gaps in knowledge can be addressed by comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. We designed a randomized controlled trial that incorporates these research methods to evaluate whole exome sequencing compared to usual care in patients being evaluated for hereditary colorectal cancer and polyposis syndromes. Approximately 220 patients will be randomized and followed for 12 months after return of genomic findings. Patients will receive findings associated with colorectal cancer in a first return of results visit, and findings not associated with colorectal cancer (incidental findings) during a second return of results visit. The primary outcome is efficacy to detect mutations associated with these syndromes; secondary outcomes include psychosocial impact, cost-effectiveness and comparative costs. The secondary outcomes will be obtained via surveys before and after each return visit. The expected challenges in conducting this randomized controlled trial include the relatively low prevalence of genetic disease, difficult interpretation of some genetic variants, and uncertainty about which incidental findings should be returned to patients. The approaches utilized in this study may help guide other investigators in clinical genomics to identify useful outcome measures and strategies to address comparative effectiveness questions about the clinical implementation of genomic sequencing in clinical care.

[Can an online risk assessment tool for identification of hereditary colorectal cancer reach the at-risk population and influence screening compliance?]. / Kann mit einem Online-Risikotest die Risikopopulation für familiären und erblichen Darmkrebs erreicht und ihr Vorsorgeverhalten positiv beeinflusst werden?

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Lynch syndrome is a frequent autosomal dominant cancer predisposition leading to an estimated incidence of 3000-4000 new cancer diagnoses of colorectal and endometrial cancer in Germany per year. The underlying hereditary condition is largely underestimated and underrecognized by physicians. The usually young at-risk population, feeling insecure about their personal risk assessment, seeks information online. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether this online risk assessment tool for identification of increased risk for hereditary cancer predisposition reaches the target population and whether it succeeds in positively influencing intensified screening compliance. METHODS: The underlying algorithm for the test is based on the Bethesda and Amsterdam criteria and recent literature on polyposis syndromes. In the context of interrogating family and personal history, a total of five risk categories were defined. In addition to the cancers as defined in the above mentioned criteria, precursor lesions (polyps) were integrated into the risk estimate. Prior to launching, the algorithm was validated in family pedigrees of 102 mutation carriers with identified MLH-1 or MSH-2 mutations. RESULTS: During the time interval analysed, which was between October 2008 and April 2011 a total of 656 participants were included. Among these 19.1 % (125/656) belonged to the target population at increased familial or hereditary risk. 72.8 % (91/125) were yet healthy with known cancer-affected relatives. Merely 34.4 % (11/32) of the high-risk population were currently participating in a risk adjusted screening program. After completion of the online test 62.5 % (20/32) felt motivated to reconsider and adjust accordingly with increased surveillance. The test received an overall "good" evaluation (83 %) based on handling, performance and information content. CONCLUSION: This online risk-assessment tool was mainly completed by healthy (not cancer-affected) individuals with an increased risk for familial or hereditary colorectal cancer predisposition. The family pedigrees were comparable to these of known mutation carriers. The at-risk population was positively motivated to intensify screening strategies and the test received an overall positive evaluation.

ACMG technical standards and guidelines for genetic testing for inherited colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis, and MYH-associated polyposis).

Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis, and Mut Y homolog (MYH)-associated polyposis are three major known types of inherited colorectal cancer, which accounts for up to 5% of all colon cancer cases. Lynch syndrome is most frequently caused by mutations in the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 and is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Familial adenomatous polyposis is manifested as colonic polyposis caused by mutations in the APC gene and is also inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Finally, MYH-associated polyposis is caused by mutations in the MUTYH gene and is inherited in an autosomal recessive manner but may or may not be associated with polyps. There are variants of both familial adenomatous polyposis (Gardner syndrome--with extracolonic features--and Turcot syndrome, which features medulloblastoma) and Lynch syndrome (Muir-Torre syndrome features sebaceous skin carcinomas, and Turcot syndrome features glioblastomas). Although a clinical diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis can be made using colonoscopy, genetic testing is needed to inform at-risk relatives. Because of the overlapping phenotypes between attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis, MYH-associated polyposis, and Lynch syndrome, genetic testing is needed to distinguish among these conditions. This distinction is important, especially for women with Lynch syndrome, who are at increased risk for gynecological cancers. Clinical testing for these genes has progressed rapidly in the past few years with advances in technologies and the lower cost of reagents, especially for sequencing. To assist clinical laboratories in developing and validating testing for this group of inherited colorectal cancers, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics has developed the following technical standards and guidelines. An algorithm for testing is also proposed.

Comparison of attitudes regarding preimplantation genetic diagnosis among patients with hereditary cancer syndromes.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) allows couples to avoid having a child with an inherited condition, potentially reducing cancer burden in families with a hereditary cancer predisposition. This study investigated and compared awareness and acceptance of PGD among patients with different hereditary cancer syndromes. Questionnaires were mailed to 984 adults with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis, or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 or 2. Associations between clinical, demographic, and psychosocial factors and awareness and acceptance of PGD were examined. Of 370 respondents (38 % return rate), 28 % felt their syndrome impacted family planning, 24 % were aware of PGD, 72 % felt that PGD should be offered, 43 % would consider using PGD, and 29 % were uncertain. Family experience and syndrome-specific characteristics, such as disease severity, quality of life and availability of medical interventions as well as gender, family planning stage, and religiosity impact perceptions of the acceptability of PGD, though a high level of uncertainty exists. Hereditary cancer patients lack awareness of PGD despite feeling that PGD should be offered, highlighting the need for education on this topic. While we found attitudes about the acceptability of PGD to be generally similar to those reported in the literature and of genetics and ethics experts, we observed similarities and differences between syndromes that provide insight into why some hereditary cancer patients may find PGD more acceptable than others.

Patients with genetic cancer undergoing surveillance at a specialized clinic rate the quality of their care better than patients at non-specialized clinics.

OBJECTIVES: To compare ratings of quality of care between patients with genetic cancer who receive specialized care with patients who receive non-specialized care while controlling for socio-demographic and clinical variables; MATERIAL AND METHODS: All patients in a national cohort of adult patients diagnosed with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) who had undergone prophylactic colorectal surgery were assessed (n = 276, response rate 76%). Quality of care was measured with the Quality of Care from the Patient Perspective (QPP). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed; RESULTS: Patients receiving specialized care were significantly more likely to report the quality of care as better in all three QPP dimensions investigated than those receiving non-specialized care; CONCLUSIONS: In order to promote and maintain good quality of care for surgically treated patients with FAP, and to minimize the risk of cancer, specialized care, including continuity and easy access of health care professionals, should be provided.

Imaging assessment of desmoid tumours in familial adenomatous polyposis: is state-of-the-art 1.5 T MRI better than 64-MDCT?

OBJECTIVE: Desmoid tumour is a common extraintestinal manifestation of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) who have undergone prophylactic colectomy. We aimed to determine whether MRI provides equivalent or better assessment of desmoid tumours than CT, the current first-line investigation. METHODS: Following ethics approval and informed consent, FAP patients with known desmoid tumour underwent contrast-enhanced 64-slice multidetector CT (MDCT) and 1.5 T MRI (incorporating T(1) weighted, T(2) weighted, short tau inversion-recovery and T(1) weighted with contrast, axial, sagittal and coronal sequences). The number, site, size, local extent, tumour signal intensity and desmoid-to-aorta enhancement ratio were analysed. RESULTS: MRI identified 23 desmoid tumours in 9 patients: 9 intra-abdominal desmoid (IAD) tumours, 10 abdominal wall desmoid (AWD) tumours and 4 extra-abdominal desmoid (EAD) tumours. CT identified only 21 desmoids; 1 EAD and 1 AWD were not identified. The two modalities were equivalent in terms of defining local extent of desmoid. Five IAD tumours involved the bowel, six caused ureteric compression and none compromised the proximal superior mesenteric artery. There was no difference in median desmoid size: 56.7 cm(2) (range 2-215 cm(2)) on MDCT and 56.3 cm(2) (3-215 cm(2)) on MRI (p=0.985). The mean MRI enhancement ratio, at 1.12 (standard deviation 0.43), was greater than the CT enhancement ratio, which was 0.48 (0.16) (p<0.0001). High signal intensity on T(2) MRI was associated with increased MRI enhancement ratio (p=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: MRI is at least equivalent (and may be superior) to MDCT for the detection of desmoid tumours in FAP. Coupled with the advantage of avoiding radiation, it should be considered as the primary imaging modality for young FAP patients.

Patients' views of surgery and surveillance for familial adenomatous polyposis.

BACKGROUND: Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is an inherited condition that requires prophylactic surgery (colectomy) followed by a lifetime program of endoscopic surveillance to prevent colorectal cancer. Patients are normally free of symptoms before surgery but a majority report problems related to bowel function postoperatively. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to gain a deeper understanding of how FAP affects life by exploring patients' view of what it is like living with the illness and being committed to a lifelong screening program. METHODS: Three focus group interviews were conducted, and data were analyzed using descriptive qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The analysis resulted in two categories related to the participants' view of living with FAP. The first category was associated with concerns related to the hereditary and lifelong nature of the disease as well as to the prophylactic surgery and the second category was related to patients' ways of managing life. CONCLUSION: Most participants expressed unmet needs, such as lack of healthcare providers with good knowledge about FAP, practical and psychosocial support, FAP educational programs, and organized meetings with other persons with the condition. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: One important aspect of living with FAP shared by the participants concerned ways of managing life concerns, something that healthcare providers caring for patients with FAP should identify and support. Furthermore, continuity of care by health care providers with good knowledge about FAP can be an important way of reducing patient concerns.