MSH3: a confirmed predisposing gene for adenomatous polyposis.

BACKGROUND: The MSH3 gene is part of the DNA mismatch repair system, but has never been shown to be involved in Lynch syndrome. A first report of four patients from two families, bearing biallelic MSH3 germline variants, with a phenotype of attenuated colorectal adenomatous polyposis raised the question of its involvement in hereditary cancer predisposition. The patients' tumours exhibited elevated microsatellite alterations at selected tetranucleotide repeats (EMAST), a hallmark of MSH3 deficiency. METHODS: We report five new unrelated patients with MSH3-associated polyposis. We describe their personal and familial history and study the EMAST phenotype in various normal and tumour samples, which are relevant findings based on the rarity of this polyposis subtype so far. RESULTS: All patients had attenuated colorectal adenomatous polyposis, with duodenal polyposis in two cases. Both women had breast carcinomas. EMAST phenotype was present at various levels in different samples of the five patients, confirming the MSH3 deficiency, with a gradient of instability in polyps depending on their degree of dysplasia. The negative EMAST phenotype ruled out the diagnosis of germline MSH3 deficiency for two patients: one homozygous for a benign variant and one with a monoallelic large deletion. CONCLUSION: This report lends further credence to biallelic MSH3 germline pathogenic variants being involved in colorectal and duodenal adenomatous polyposis. Large-scale studies may help clarify the tumour spectrum and associated risks. Ascertainment of EMAST may help with the interpretation of variants of unknown significance. We recommend adding MSH3 to dedicated diagnostic gene panels.

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.