Worldwide prevalence of Lynch syndrome in patients with colorectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndrome, with an estimated prevalence of 2% to 3% of CRC. A prevalence study is needed to provide accurate estimates of the true prevalence of LS. METHODS: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, and Web of Science were searched. Prevalence was calculated by random effects meta-analysis models. I2 score was used to assess heterogeneity across studies. Meta-regression was performed for between-study variance. RESULTS: A total of 51 studies were included in this review. The overall pooled yield of LS screening was 2.2% based on all methods of detection. Studies performing germline tests on all participants with CRC reported higher prevalence (5.1%) as opposed to studies only performing germline tests on participants with tumors with mismatch repair deficiency (1.6%) or microsatellite instability (1.1%). Selected cohorts of CRC had a higher prevalence of germline LS diagnoses. CONCLUSION: LS prevalence across multiple ethnic, geographic, and clinical populations is remarkably similar. Universal germline testing of patients presenting with cancer identifies that most CRCs are attributed to LS. Young patients presenting with CRC and those who fulfill criteria for a familial risk provide the highest returns for LS identification. Our study supports the universal germline CRC screening for LS.

Genetic variant interpretation: a primer for clinicians.

Clinicians beyond specialist genetic services are now able to order tests to interrogate the genetic basis of disease. Behind every genetic report lies a significant body of work that draws on decades of collaboration between clinicians, researchers and database curators. Understanding these advances in genetic variant interpretation may allow practising clinicians to develop a more nuanced appreciation of the role genetic variant interpretation can play in the diagnosis and management of heritable disorders. In this article, we consider genetic variant interpretation with reference to efforts to better understand variation in the mismatch repair genes and their relation to Lynch syndrome - the most common cause of hereditary colon cancer.

Evaluation of literature searching tools for curation of mismatch repair gene variants in hereditary colon cancer.

Pathogenic constitutional genomic variants in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes are the drivers of Lynch syndrome; optimal variant interpretation is required for the management of suspected and confirmed cases. The International Society for Hereditary Gastrointestinal Tumours (InSiGHT) provides expert classifications for MMR variants for the US National Human Genome Research Institute's (NHGRI) ClinGen initiative and interprets variants with discordant classifications and those of uncertain significance (VUSs). Given the onerous nature of extracting information related to variants, literature searching tools which harness artificial intelligence may aid in retrieving information to allow optimum variant classification. In this study, we described the nature of discordance in a sample of 80 variants from a list of variants requiring updating by InSiGHT for ClinGen by comparing their existing InSiGHT classifications with the various submissions for each variant on the US National Centre for Biotechnology Information's (NCBI) ClinVar database. To identify the potential value of a literature searching tool in extracting information related to classification, all variants were searched for using a traditional method (Google Scholar) and literature searching tool (Mastermind) independently. Descriptive statistics were used to compare: the number of articles before and after screening for relevance and the number of relevant articles unique to either method. Relevance was defined as containing the variant in question as well as data informing variant interpretation. A total of 916 articles were returned by both methods and Mastermind averaged four relevant articles per search compared to Google Scholar's three. Of relevant Mastermind articles, 193/308 (62.7%) were unique to it, compared to 87/202, (43.0%) for Google Scholar. For 24 variants, either or both methods found no information. All 6/80 (20%) variants with pathogenic or likely pathogenic InSiGHT classifications have newer VUS assertions on ClinVar. Our study demonstrated that for a sample of variants with varying discordant interpretations, Mastermind was able to return on average, a more relevant and unique literature search. Google Scholar was able to retrieve information that Mastermind did not, which supports a conclusion that Mastermind could play a complementary role in literature searching for classification. This work will aid InSiGHT in its role of classifying MMR variants.