Familial component of early-onset colorectal cancer: opportunity for prevention.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with a non-syndromic family history of colorectal cancer are known to have an increased risk. There is an opportunity to prevent early-onset colorectal cancer (age less than 50 years) (EOCRC) in this population. The aim was to explore the proportion of EOCRC that is preventable due to family history of colorectal cancer. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicentre European study of patients with non-hereditary EOCRC. The impact of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines on prevention and early diagnosis was compared. Colorectal cancer was defined as potentially preventable if surveillance colonoscopy would have been performed at least 5 years before the age of diagnosis of colorectal cancer, and diagnosed early if colonoscopy was undertaken between 1 and 4 years before the diagnosis. RESULTS: Some 903 patients with EOCRC were included. Criteria for familial colorectal cancer risk in ESGE, USMSTF, and NCCN guidelines were met in 6.3, 9.4, and 30.4 per cent of patients respectively. Based on ESGE, USMSTF, and NCCN guidelines, colorectal cancer could potentially have been prevented in 41, 55, and 30.3 per cent of patients, and diagnosed earlier in 11, 14, and 21.1 per cent respectively. In ESGE guidelines, if surveillance had started 10 years before the youngest relative, there would be a significant increase in prevention (41 versus 55 per cent; P = 0.010). CONCLUSION: ESGE, USMSTF, and NCCN criteria for familial colorectal cancer were met in 6.3, 9.4, and 30.4 per cent of patients with EOCRC respectively. In these patients, early detection and/or prevention could be achieved in 52, 70, and 51.4 per cent respectively. Early and accurate identification of familial colorectal cancer risk and increase in the uptake of early colonoscopy are key to decreasing familial EOCRC.

5-Fluorouracil adjuvant chemotherapy does not increase survival in patients with CpG island methylator phenotype colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based adjuvant chemotherapy does not increase survival times of patients with colorectal tumors with microsatellite instability. We determined the response of patients with colorectal tumors with the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) to 5-FU-based therapy. METHODS: We analyzed a population-based cohort of 302 patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) for a median follow-up time of 50.7 months. CIMP status was determined by analysis of the CACNAG1, SOCS1, RUNX3, NEUROG1, and MLH1 promoters; tumors were considered to be CIMP positive if at least 3 promoters were methylated. RESULTS: Tumors from 29.5% of patients (89/302) were CIMP positive; CIMP status did not influence disease-free survival (DFS; log-rank = 0.3). Of tumors of TNM stages II-III (n = 196), 32.7% were CIMP positive. Among patients with stages II-III CRC who did not receive adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy, those with CIMP-positive tumors had longest times of DFS (log-rank = 0.04); In patients who received chemotherapy, those with CIMP-positive tumors had shorter times of DFS (log-rank = 0.02). In patients with CIMP-negative tumors, adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy significantly increased time of DFS (log-rank = 0.00001). However, in patients with CIMP-positive tumors, adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy did not affect time of DFS (log-rank = 0.7). Multivariate analysis showed a significant, independent interaction between 5-FU treatment and CIMP status (hazard ratio [HR], 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-0.8). Among patients with CIMP-positive tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy was not an independent predictor of outcome (HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.0). In patients who did not receive adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy, CIMP status was the only independent predictor of survival (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CIMP-positive colorectal tumors do not benefit from 5-FU-based adjuvant chemotherapy.

Cancer chemoprevention by dietary polyphenols: promising role for epigenetics.

Epigenetics refers to heritable changes that are not encoded in the DNA sequence itself, but play an important role in the control of gene expression. In mammals, epigenetic mechanisms include changes in DNA methylation, histone modifications and non-coding RNAs. Although epigenetic changes are heritable in somatic cells, these modifications are also potentially reversible, which makes them attractive and promising avenues for tailoring cancer preventive and therapeutic strategies. Burgeoning evidence in the last decade has provided unprecedented clues that diet and environmental factors directly influence epigenetic mechanisms in humans. Dietary polyphenols from green tea, turmeric, soybeans, broccoli and others have shown to possess multiple cell-regulatory activities within cancer cells. More recently, we have begun to understand that some of the dietary polyphenols may exert their chemopreventive effects in part by modulating various components of the epigenetic machinery in humans. In this article, we first discuss the contribution of diet and environmental factors on epigenetic alterations; subsequently, we provide a comprehensive review of literature on the role of various dietary polyphenols. In particular, we summarize the current knowledge on a large number of dietary agents and their effects on DNA methylation, histone modifications and regulation of expression of the non-coding miRNAs in various in vitro and in vivo models. We emphasize how increased understanding of the chemopreventive effects of dietary polyphenols on specific epigenetic alterations may provide unique and yet unexplored novel and highly effective chemopreventive strategies for reducing the health burden of cancer and other diseases in humans.

The efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil in colorectal cancer depends on the mismatch repair status.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to evaluate if mismatch repair (MMR) defective colorectal cancer has a different response to adjuvant 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) chemotherapy in a cohort of patients prospectively followed during 5 years. METHODS: The cohort included 754 surgically treated patients with colorectal cancer. MMR status was diagnosed by MLH1 and MSH2 immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability analysis. Median follow-up was 49.2 months (range 1-73). At inclusion, 505 patients were diagnosed as TNM II or III stage, analysis of the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy was made on this population. Adjuvant chemotherapy was applied to 248 patients (98.2% 5-FU based). RESULTS: MMR deficiency was found in 76 patients (10.1%). No differences were found in overall survival (log-rank p=0.3) or disease-free survival (log-rank p=0.3) regarding MMR status. Adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients in the II or III stage, but this improvement is only evident in patients with MMR-competent tumours (log-rank p=0.00001). Survival of patients with MMR-defective tumours does not improve with adjuvant chemotherapy (log-rank p=0.7). A multivariate analysis showed an independent effect of the interaction between MMR status and adjuvant chemotherapy (Hazard ratio 2.04; 95% confidence interval: 1.42-2.93). CONCLUSION: In a cohort of colorectal cancer patients, those with MMR-deficient tumours seem not to benefit from 5-FU-based chemotherapy.