Identifying primary and secondary MLH1 epimutation carriers displaying low-level constitutional MLH1 methylation using droplet digital PCR and genome-wide DNA methylation profiling of colorectal cancers.

BACKGROUND: MLH1 epimutation is characterised by constitutional monoallelic MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, which can cause colorectal cancer (CRC). Tumour molecular profiles of MLH1 epimutation CRCs were used to classify germline MLH1 promoter variants of uncertain significance and MLH1 methylated early-onset CRCs (EOCRCs). Genome-wide DNA methylation and somatic mutational profiles of tumours from two germline MLH1: c.-11C > T and one MLH1: c.-[28A > G; 7C > T] carriers and three MLH1 methylated EOCRCs (< 45 years) were compared with 38 reference CRCs. Methylation-sensitive droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was used to detect mosaic MLH1 methylation in blood, normal mucosa and buccal DNA. RESULTS: Genome-wide methylation-based Consensus Clustering identified four clusters where the tumour methylation profiles of germline MLH1: c.-11C > T carriers and MLH1 methylated EOCRCs clustered with the constitutional MLH1 epimutation CRCs but not with the sporadic MLH1 methylated CRCs. Furthermore, monoallelic MLH1 methylation and APC promoter hypermethylation in tumour were observed in both MLH1 epimutation and germline MLH1: c.-11C > T carriers and MLH1 methylated EOCRCs. Mosaic constitutional MLH1 methylation in MLH1: c.-11C > T carriers and 1 of 3 MLH1 methylated EOCRCs was identified by methylation-sensitive ddPCR. CONCLUSIONS: Mosaic MLH1 epimutation underlies the CRC aetiology in MLH1: c.-11C > T germline carriers and a subset of MLH1 methylated EOCRCs. Tumour profiling and ultra-sensitive ddPCR methylation testing can be used to identify mosaic MLH1 epimutation carriers.

Clinical and imaging modality factors impacting radiological interpretation of breast screening in young women with neurofibromatosis type 1.

Young women with Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) have a high risk of developing breast cancer and poorer survival following breast cancer diagnosis. International guidelines recommend commencing breast screening between 30 and 35 years; however, the optimal screening modality is unestablished, and previous reports suggest that breast imaging may be complicated by the presence of intramammary and cutaneous neurofibromas (cNFs). The aim of this study was to explore potential barriers to implementation of breast screening for young women with NF1.Twenty-seven women (30-47 years) with NF1 completed breast screening with breast MRI, mammogram and breast ultrasound. Nineteen probably benign/suspicious lesions were detected across 14 women. Despite the presence of breast cNFs, initial biopsy rate for participants with NF1 (37%), were comparable to a BRCA pathogenic variant (PV) cohort (25%) (P = 0.311). No cancers or intramammary neurofibromas were identified. Most participants (89%) returned for second round screening.The presence of cNF did not affect clinician confidence in 3D mammogram interpretation, although increasing breast density, frequently seen in young women, impeded confidence for 2D and 3D mammogram. Moderate or marked background parenchymal enhancement on MRI was higher in the NF1 cohort (70.4%) than BRCA PV carriers (47.3%), which is an independent risk factor for breast cancer.Breast MRI was the preferred mode of screening over mammogram, as the majority (85%) with NF1 demonstrated breast density (BI-RADS 3C/4D), which hinders mammogram interpretation. For those with high breast density and high cNF breast coverage, 3D rather than 2D mammogram is preferred, if MRI is unavailable.

A tumor focused approach to resolving the etiology of DNA mismatch repair deficient tumors classified as suspected Lynch syndrome.

Routine screening of tumors for DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency (dMMR) in colorectal (CRC), endometrial (EC) and sebaceous skin (SST) tumors leads to a significant proportion of unresolved cases classified as suspected Lynch syndrome (SLS). SLS cases (n = 135) were recruited from Family Cancer Clinics across Australia and New Zealand. Targeted panel sequencing was performed on tumor (n = 137; 80×CRCs, 33×ECs and 24xSSTs) and matched blood-derived DNA to assess for microsatellite instability status, tumor mutation burden, COSMIC tumor mutational signatures and to identify germline and somatic MMR gene variants. MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) and MLH1 promoter methylation were repeated. In total, 86.9% of the 137 SLS tumors could be resolved into established subtypes. For 22.6% of these resolved SLS cases, primary MLH1 epimutations (2.2%) as well as previously undetected germline MMR pathogenic variants (1.5%), tumor MLH1 methylation (13.1%) or false positive dMMR IHC (5.8%) results were identified. Double somatic MMR gene mutations were the major cause of dMMR identified across each tumor type (73.9% of resolved cases, 64.2% overall, 70% of CRC, 45.5% of ECs and 70.8% of SSTs). The unresolved SLS tumors (13.1%) comprised tumors with only a single somatic (7.3%) or no somatic (5.8%) MMR gene mutations. A tumor-focused testing approach reclassified 86.9% of SLS into Lynch syndrome, sporadic dMMR or MMR-proficient cases. These findings support the incorporation of tumor sequencing and alternate MLH1 methylation assays into clinical diagnostics to reduce the number of SLS patients and provide more appropriate surveillance and screening recommendations.

A tumor focused approach to resolving the etiology of DNA mismatch repair deficient tumors classified as suspected Lynch syndrome.

Routine screening of tumors for DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency (dMMR) in colorectal (CRC), endometrial (EC) and sebaceous skin (SST) tumors leads to a significant proportion of unresolved cases classified as suspected Lynch syndrome (SLS). SLS cases (n=135) were recruited from Family Cancer Clinics across Australia and New Zealand. Targeted panel sequencing was performed on tumor (n=137; 80xCRCs, 33xECs and 24xSSTs) and matched blood-derived DNA to assess for microsatellite instability status, tumor mutation burden, COSMIC tumor mutational signatures and to identify germline and somatic MMR gene variants. MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) and MLH1 promoter methylation were repeated. In total, 86.9% of the 137 SLS tumors could be resolved into established subtypes. For 22.6% of these resolved SLS cases, primary MLH1 epimutations (2.2%) as well as previously undetected germline MMR pathogenic variants (1.5%), tumor MLH1 methylation (13.1%) or false positive dMMR IHC (5.8%) results were identified. Double somatic MMR gene mutations were the major cause of dMMR identified across each tumor type (73.9% of resolved cases, 64.2% overall, 70% of CRC, 45.5% of ECs and 70.8% of SSTs). The unresolved SLS tumors (13.1%) comprised tumors with only a single somatic (7.3%) or no somatic (5.8%) MMR gene mutations. A tumor-focused testing approach reclassified 86.9% of SLS into Lynch syndrome, sporadic dMMR or MMR-proficient cases. These findings support the incorporation of tumor sequencing and alternate MLH1 methylation assays into clinical diagnostics to reduce the number of SLS patients and provide more appropriate surveillance and screening recommendations.

The psychological impact and experience of breast cancer screening in young women with an increased risk of breast cancer due to neurofibromatosis type 1.

Women with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) have an increased risk of developing early breast cancer with a poorer prognosis compared to the general population. Therefore, international management guidelines recommend regular screening in women with NF1 starting from 30 to 35 years. As the psychological impacts of breast cancer screening in other high-risk populations cannot be extended to women with NF1, due to increased incidence of cognitive and mental health issues, the psychological harms of breast screening in women with NF1 are unknown. Consequently, the aim of this study was to assess the psychological impact of breast cancer screening in women with NF1 attending an established risk management clinic. Twenty-eight women with NF1 (30-50 years) completed psychological well-being and patient experience questionnaires, administered across five time points, before and after their initial and second round annual breast screening visits. Preliminary findings demonstrated the screening regimen was well-tolerated, with most participants reporting high satisfaction with the screening process. Overall, no significant increase in psychological distress related to the breast screening process was identified, with mean cancer worry and anxiety scores decreasing over time. However, some women did experience negative aspects of screening and barriers to re-attendance at annual breast screening appointments. As some women with NF1 exhibited clinical levels of psychological distress prior to screening, efforts to identify those at risk and additional support to address concerns and expectations throughout the breast screening process may be beneficial.

Bayesian approach to determining penetrance of pathogenic SDH variants.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, determining penetrance required large observational cohort studies. Data from the Exome Aggregate Consortium (ExAC) allows a Bayesian approach to calculate penetrance, in that population frequencies of pathogenic germline variants should be inversely proportional to their penetrance for disease. We tested this hypothesis using data from two cohorts for succinate dehydrogenase subunits A, B and C (SDHA-C) genetic variants associated with hereditary pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma (PC/PGL). METHODS: Two cohorts were 575 unrelated Australian subjects and 1240 unrelated UK subjects, respectively, with PC/PGL in whom genetic testing had been performed. Penetrance of pathogenic SDHA-C variants was calculated by comparing allelic frequencies in cases versus controls from ExAC (removing those variants contributed by The Cancer Genome Atlas). RESULTS: Pathogenic SDHA-C variants were identified in 106 subjects (18.4%) in cohort 1 and 317 subjects (25.6%) in cohort 2. Of 94 different pathogenic variants from both cohorts (seven in SDHA, 75 in SDHB and 12 in SDHC), 13 are reported in ExAC (two in SDHA, nine in SDHB and two in SDHC) accounting for 21% of subjects with SDHA-C variants. Combining data from both cohorts, estimated lifetime disease penetrance was 22.0% (95% CI 15.2% to 30.9%) for SDHB variants, 8.3% (95% CI 3.5% to 18.5%) for SDHC variants and 1.7% (95% CI 0.8% to 3.8%) for SDHA variants. CONCLUSION: Pathogenic variants in SDHB are more penetrant than those in SDHC and SDHA. Our findings have important implications for counselling and surveillance of subjects carrying these pathogenic variants.