MLH1-methylated endometrial cancer under 60 years of age as the "sentinel" cancer in female carriers of high-risk constitutional MLH1 epimutation.

OBJECTIVE: Universal screening of endometrial carcinoma (EC) for mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd) and Lynch syndrome uses presence of MLH1 methylation to omit common sporadic cases from follow-up germline testing. However, this overlooks rare cases with high-risk constitutional MLH1 methylation (epimutation), a poorly-recognized mechanism that predisposes to Lynch-type cancers with MLH1 methylation. We aimed to determine the role and frequency of constitutional MLH1 methylation among EC cases with MMRd, MLH1-methylated tumors. METHODS: We screened blood for constitutional MLH1 methylation using pyrosequencing and real-time methylation-specific PCR in patients with MMRd, MLH1-methylated EC ascertained from (i) cancer clinics (n = 4, <60 years), and (ii) two population-based cohorts; "Columbus-area" (n = 68, all ages) and "Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative (OCCPI)" (n = 24, <60 years). RESULTS: Constitutional MLH1 methylation was identified in three out of four patients diagnosed between 36 and 59 years from cancer clinics. Two had mono-/hemiallelic epimutation (∼50% alleles methylated). One with multiple primaries had low-level mosaicism in normal tissues and somatic "second-hits" affecting the unmethylated allele in all tumors, demonstrating causation. In the population-based cohorts, all 68 cases from the Columbus-area cohort were negative and low-level mosaic constitutional MLH1 methylation was identified in one patient aged 36 years out of 24 from the OCCPI cohort, representing one of six (∼17%) patients <50 years and one of 45 patients (∼2%) <60 years in the combined cohorts. EC was the first/dual-first cancer in three patients with underlying constitutional MLH1 methylation. CONCLUSIONS: A correct diagnosis at first presentation of cancer is important as it will significantly alter clinical management. Screening for constitutional MLH1 methylation is warranted in patients with early-onset EC or synchronous/metachronous tumors (any age) displaying MLH1 methylation.

Novel APC promoter and exon 1B deletion and allelic silencing in three mutation-negative classic familial adenomatous polyposis families.

BACKGROUND: The overwhelming majority (approximately 80%) of individuals with classic familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) exhibit mutations in the coding sequence of the adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) tumor suppressor gene. Families without detectable APC mutations are unable to benefit from the use of genetic testing for clinical management of this autosomal dominant syndrome. METHODS: We used exome sequencing and linkage analysis, coupled with second-generation sequencing of the APC locus including non-coding regions to investigate three APC mutation-negative classical FAP families. RESULTS: We identified a novel ~11 kb deletion localized 44 kb upstream of the transcription start site of APC that encompasses the APC 1B promoter and exon. This deletion was present only in affected family members of one kindred with classical FAP. Furthermore, this same deletion with identical breakpoints was found in the probands of two additional APC mutation-negative classical FAP kindreds. Phasing analysis of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) around the deletion site in the three probands showed evidence of a shared haplotype, suggesting a common founder deletion in the three kindreds. SNP analysis within the coding sequence of APC, revealed that this ~11 kb deletion was accompanied by silencing of one of the APC alleles in blood-derived RNA of affected individuals. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the causal role of a novel promoter deletion in FAP and suggest that non-coding deletions, identifiable using second-generation sequencing methods, may account for a significant fraction of APC mutation-negative classical FAP families.

Adverse events in cancer genetic testing: the third case series.

After repeated media attention in 2013 due to the Angelina Jolie disclosure and the Supreme Court decision to ban gene patents, the demand for cancer genetic counseling and testing services has never been greater. Debate has arisen regarding who should provide such services and the quality of genetics services being offered. In this ongoing case series, we document 35 new cases from 7 states (California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Utah) and the District of Columbia of adverse outcomes in cancer genetic testing when performed without the involvement of a certified genetic counselor. We identified 3 major themes of errors: wrong genetic tests ordered, genetic test results misinterpreted, and inadequate genetic counseling. Patient morbidity and mortality were an issue in several of these cases. The complexity of cancer genetic testing and counseling has grown exponentially with the advent of multigene panels that include rare genes and the potential for more variants of uncertain significance. We conclude that genetic counseling and testing should be offered by certified genetics providers to minimize the risks, maximize the benefits, and utilize health care dollars most efficiently.