Associations of Pathogenic Variants in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 With Risk of Colorectal Adenomas and Tumors and With Somatic Mutations in Patients With Lynch Syndrome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Lynch syndrome is caused by variants in DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes and associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). In patients with Lynch syndrome, CRCs can develop via different pathways. We studied associations between Lynch syndrome-associated variants in MMR genes and risks of adenoma and CRC and somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1 in tumors in an international cohort of patients. METHODS: We combined clinical and molecular data from 3 studies. We obtained clinical data from 2747 patients with Lynch syndrome associated with variants in MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 from Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland who received at least 2 surveillance colonoscopies and were followed for a median time of 7.8 years for development of adenomas or CRC. We performed DNA sequence analyses of 48 colorectal tumors (from 16 patients with mutations in MLH1, 29 patients with mutations in MSH2, and 3 with mutations in MSH6) for somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1. RESULTS: Risk of advanced adenoma in 10 years was 17.8% in patients with pathogenic variants in MSH2 vs 7.7% in MLH1 (P < .001). Higher proportions of patients with pathogenic variants in MLH1 or MSH2 developed CRC in 10 years (11.3% and 11.4%) than patients with pathogenic variants in MSH6 (4.7%) (P = .001 and P = .003 for MLH1 and MSH2 vs MSH6, respectively). Somatic mutations in APC were found in 75% of tumors from patients with pathogenic variants in MSH2 vs 11% in MLH1 (P = .015). Somatic mutations in CTNNB1 were found in 50% of tumors from patients with pathogenic variants in MLH1 vs 7% in MSH2 (P = .002). None of the 3 tumors with pathogenic variants in MSH6 had a mutation in CTNNB1, but all had mutations in APC. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of clinical and DNA sequence data from patients with Lynch syndrome from 3 countries, we associated pathogenic variants in MMR genes with risk of adenoma and CRC, and somatic mutations in APC and CTNNB1 in colorectal tumors. If these findings are confirmed, surveillance guidelines might be adjusted based on MMR gene variants.

No Difference in Colorectal Cancer Incidence or Stage at Detection by Colonoscopy Among 3 Countries With Different Lynch Syndrome Surveillance Policies.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with Lynch syndrome are at high risk for developing colorectal cancer (CRC). Regular colonoscopic surveillance is recommended, but there is no international consensus on the appropriate interval. We investigated whether shorter intervals are associated with lower CRC incidence and detection at earlier stages by comparing the surveillance policies in Germany, which evaluates patients by colonoscopy annually, in the Netherlands (patients evaluated at 1-2-year intervals), and Finland (patients evaluated at 2-3-year intervals). METHODS: We collected data from 16,327 colonoscopic examinations (conducted from 1984 through 2015) of 2747 patients with Lynch syndrome (pathogenic variants in the MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 genes) from the German HNPCC Consortium, the Dutch Lynch Syndrome Registry, and the Finnish Lynch Syndrome Registry. Our analysis included 23,309 person-years of cumulative observation time. Time from the index colonoscopy to incident CRC or adenoma was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method; groups were compared using the log-rank test. We performed multivariable Cox regression analyses to identify factors associated with CRC risk (diagnosis of CRC before the index colonoscopy, sex, mutation, age, and presence of adenoma at the index colonoscopy). RESULTS: The 10-year cumulative CRC incidence ranged from 4.1% to 18.4% in patients with low- and high-risk profiles, respectively, and varied with age, sex, mutation, and prior detection of CRC or adenoma. Observed colonoscopy intervals were largely in accordance with the country-specific recommendations. We found no significant differences in cumulative CRC incidence or CRC stage at detection among countries. There was no significant association between CRC stage and time since last colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a significant reduction in CRC incidence or stage of detection in Germany (annual colonoscopic surveillance) than in countries with longer surveillance intervals (the Netherlands, with 1-2-year intervals, and Finland, with 2-3-year intervals). Overall, we did not find a significant association of the interval with CRC risk, although age, sex, mutation, and prior neoplasia were used to individually modify colonoscopy intervals. Studies are needed to develop and validate risk-adapted surveillance strategies and to identify patients who benefit from shorter surveillance intervals.

Randomized Comparison of Surveillance Intervals in Familial Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Colonoscopic surveillance is recommended for individuals with familial colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the appropriate screening interval has not yet been determined. The aim of this randomized trial was to compare a 3-year with a 6-year screening interval. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals between ages 45 and 65 years with one first-degree relative with CRC age < 50 years or two first-degree relatives with CRC were selected. Patients with zero to two adenomas at baseline were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group A (colonoscopy at 6 years) or group B (colonoscopy at 3 and 6 years). The primary outcome measure was advanced adenomatous polyps (AAPs). Risk factors studied included sex, age, type of family history, and baseline endoscopic findings. RESULTS: A total of 528 patients were randomly assigned (group A, n = 262; group B, n = 266). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference in the proportion of patients with AAPs at the first follow-up examination at 6 years in group A (6.9%) versus 3 years in group B (3.5%). Also, the proportion of patients with AAPs at the final follow-up examination at 6 years in group A (6.9%) versus 6 years in group B (3.4%) was not significantly different. Only AAPs at baseline was a significant predictor for the presence of AAPs at first follow-up. After correction for the difference in AAPs at baseline, differences between the groups in the rate of AAPs at first follow-up and at the final examination were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In view of the relatively low rate of AAPs at 6 years and the absence of CRC in group A, we consider a 6-year surveillance interval appropriate. A surveillance interval of 3 years might be considered in patients with AAPs and patients with ≥ three adenomas.

One to 2-year surveillance intervals reduce risk of colorectal cancer in families with Lynch syndrome.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Two percent to 4% of all cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) are associated with Lynch syndrome. Dominant clustering of CRC (non-Lynch syndrome) accounts for 1%-3% of the cases. Because carcinogenesis is accelerated in Lynch syndrome, an intensive colonoscopic surveillance program has been recommended since 1995. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of this program. METHODS: The study included 205 Lynch syndrome families with identified mutations in one of the mismatch repair genes (745 mutation carriers). We also analyzed data from non-Lynch syndrome families (46 families, 344 relatives). Patients were observed from January 1, 1995, until January 1, 2009. End points of the study were CRC or date of the last colonoscopy. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 7.2 years, 33 patients developed CRC under surveillance. The cumulative risk of CRC was 6% after the 10-year follow-up period. The risk of CRC was higher in carriers older than 40 years and in carriers of MLH1 and MSH2 mutations. After a mean follow-up of 7.0 years, 6 cases of CRC were detected among non-Lynch syndrome families. The risk of CRC was significantly higher among families with Lynch syndrome, compared with those without. CONCLUSIONS: With surveillance intervals of 1-2 years, members of families with Lynch syndrome have a lower risk of developing CRC than with surveillance intervals of 2-3 years. Because of the low risk of CRC in non-Lynch syndrome families, a less intensive surveillance protocol can be recommended.

Colonic stenting as bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for management of acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction: a multicenter randomized trial (Stent-in 2 study).

BACKGROUND: Acute left-sided colonic obstruction is most often caused by malignancy and the surgical treatment is associated with a high mortality and morbidity rate. Moreover, these operated patients end up with a temporary or permanent stoma. Initial insertion of an enteral stent to decompress the obstructed colon, allowing for surgery to be performed electively, is gaining popularity. In uncontrolled studies stent placement before elective surgery has been suggested to decrease mortality, morbidity and number of colostomies. However stent perforation can lead to peritoneal tumor spill, changing a potentially curable disease in an incurable one. Therefore it is of paramount importance to compare the outcomes of colonic stenting followed by elective surgery with emergency surgery for the management of acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction in a randomized multicenter fashion. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients with acute left-sided malignant colonic obstruction eligible for this study will be randomized to either emergency surgery (current standard treatment) or colonic stenting as bridge to elective surgery. Outcome measurements are effectiveness and costs of both strategies. Effectiveness will be evaluated in terms of quality of life, morbidity and mortality. Quality of life will be measured with standardized questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-CR38, EQ-5D and EQ-VAS). Morbidity is defined as every event leading to hospital admission or prolonging hospital stay. Mortality will be analyzed as total mortality as well as procedure-related mortality. The total costs of treatment will be evaluated by counting volumes and calculating unit prices. Including 120 patients on a 1:1 basis will have 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.5 on the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health scale, using a two group t-test with a 0.05 two-sided significance level. Differences in quality of life and morbidity will be analyzed using mixed-models repeated measures analysis of variance. Mortality will be compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank statistics. DISCUSSION: The Stent-in 2 study is a randomized controlled multicenter trial that will provide evidence whether or not colonic stenting as bridge to surgery is to be performed in patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46462267.