Isolated MLH1 Loss by Immunohistochemistry Because of Benign Germline MLH1 Polymorphisms.

PURPOSE: Mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC) is frequently used to inform prognosis, select (immuno-)therapy, and identify patients for heritable cancer syndrome testing. However, false-negative and false-positive MMR IHC interpretations have been described. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following identification of discordant MMR IHC and DNA-based microsatellite instability testing in a patient with colorectal carcinoma, we retrospectively reviewed institutional archives to identify patient samples with similar discrepancies. RESULTS: We report a patient with metastatic colorectal carcinoma who initially received immunotherapy on the basis of apparent isolated loss of MLH1 by IHC; notably, MLH1 promoter hypermethylation was negative. Subsequent evaluation of neoplastic tissue on a DNA-based targeted next-generation sequencing panel demonstrated microsatellite stability, low tumor mutational burden, and a benign MLH1 variant, MLH1 p.V384D, accompanied by loss of heterozygosity. The constellation of findings and repeat MLH1 IHC demonstrating retained expression using a different antibody-clone, supported reclassification of the neoplasm as MMR-proficient. Immunotherapy was discontinued, and cytotoxic chemotherapy was initiated. This index case of apparent discordance between MMR IHC and DNA-based microsatellite instability prompted a retrospective review of institutional archives to identify patient samples with similar discrepancies. Further evaluation of neoplasms harboring MLH1 p.V384D with loss of heterozygosity revealed systematic antibody-dependent interference. The review also identified a second IHC-interference candidate, MLH1 p.A441T. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that rare germline polymorphisms can result in incorrect IHC results, potentially affecting selection of optimal therapy and the decision to pursue germline testing. This case further highlights the need for expert molecular pathologic review and communication between clinical and molecular oncology teams.

Prospective Statewide Study of Universal Screening for Hereditary Colorectal Cancer: The Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative.

Hereditary cancer syndromes infer high cancer risks and require intensive surveillance. Identification of high-risk individuals among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) needs improvement. METHODS: Three thousand three hundred ten unselected adults who underwent surgical resection for primary invasive CRC were prospectively accrued from 51 hospitals across Ohio between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016. Universal Tumor screening (UTS) for mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency was performed for all, and pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) were identified using multigene panel testing (MGPT) in those who met at least one inclusion criterion: MMR deficiency, diagnosed < 50 years, multiple primary tumors (CRC or endometrial cancer), or with a first-degree relative with CRC or endometrial cancer. RESULTS: Five hundred twenty-five patients (15.9%) had MMR deficiency. Two hundred thirty-four of 3,310 (7.1%; 16% of the 1,462 who received MGPT) had 248 PGVs in cancer susceptibility genes. One hundred forty-two (4.3%) had a PGV in an MMR gene, and 101 (3.1%) had a PGV in a non-MMR gene. Ten with Lynch syndrome (LS) also had a non-MMR PGV and were included in both groups. Two (0.06%) had constitutional MLH1 hypermethylation. Of unexplained MMR-deficient patients, 88.4% (76 of 86) had double somatic MMR mutations. Testing for only MMR genes in MMR-deficient patients would have missed 18 non-MMR gene PGVs (7.3% of total PGVs identified). Had UTS been the only method used to screen for hereditary cancer syndromes, 38.6% (91 of 236) would have been missed, including 6.3% (9 of 144) of those with LS. These results have treatment implications as 5.3% (175 of 3,310) had PGVs in genes with therapeutic targets. CONCLUSION: UTS alone is insufficient for identifying a large proportion of CRC patients with hereditary syndromes, including some with LS. At a minimum, 7.1% of individuals with CRC have a PGV and pan-cancer MGPT should be considered for all patients with CRC.

Using Somatic Mutations from Tumors to Classify Variants in Mismatch Repair Genes.

Present guidelines for classification of constitutional variants do not incorporate inferences from mutations seen in tumors, even when these are associated with a specific molecular phenotype. When somatic mutations and constitutional mutations lead to the same molecular phenotype, as for the mismatch repair genes, information from somatic mutations may enable interpretation of previously unclassified variants. To test this idea, we first estimated likelihoods that somatic variants in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 drive microsatellite instability and characteristic IHC staining patterns by calculating likelihoods of high versus low normalized variant read fractions of 153 mutations known to be pathogenic versus those of 760 intronic passenger mutations from 174 paired tumor-normal samples. Mutations that explained the tumor mismatch repair phenotype had likelihood ratio for high variant read fraction of 1.56 (95% CI 1.42-1.71) at sites with no loss of heterozygosity and of 26.5 (95% CI 13.2-53.0) at sites with loss of heterozygosity. Next, we applied these ratios to 165 missense, synonymous, and splice variants observed in tumors, combining in a Bayesian analysis the likelihood ratio corresponding with the adjusted variant read fraction with pretest probabilities derived from published analyses and public databases. We suggest classifications for 86 of 165 variants: 7 benign, 31 likely benign, 22 likely pathogenic, and 26 pathogenic. These results illustrate that for mismatch repair genes, characterization of tumor mutations permits tumor mutation data to inform constitutional variant classification. We suggest modifications to incorporate molecular phenotype in future variant classification guidelines.

Assessment of Tumor Sequencing as a Replacement for Lynch Syndrome Screening and Current Molecular Tests for Patients With Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome (LS) in colorectal cancer (CRC) is recommended and involves up to 6 sequential tests. Somatic gene testing is performed on stage IV CRCs for treatment determination. The diagnostic workup for patients with CRC could be simplified and improved using a single up-front tumor next-generation sequencing test if it has higher sensitivity and specificity than the current screening protocol. Objective: To determine whether up-front tumor sequencing (TS) could replace the current multiple sequential test approach for universal tumor screening for LS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Tumor DNA from 419 consecutive CRC cases undergoing standard universal tumor screening and germline genetic testing when indicated as part of the multicenter, population-based Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative from October 2015 through February 2016 (the prospective cohort) and 46 patients with CRC known to have LS due to a germline mutation in a mismatch repair gene from January 2013 through September 2015 (the validation cohort) underwent blinded TS. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sensitivity of TS compared with microsatellite instability (MSI) testing and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining for the detection of LS. Results: In the 465 patients, mean age at diagnosis was 59.9 years (range, 20-96 years), and 241 (51.8%) were female. Tumor sequencing identified all 46 known LS cases from the validation cohort and an additional 12 LS cases from the 419-member prospective cohort. Testing with MSI or IHC, followed by BRAF p.V600E testing missed 5 and 6 cases of LS, respectively. Tumor sequencing alone had better sensitivity (100%; 95% CI, 93.8%-100%) than IHC plus BRAF (89.7%; 95% CI, 78.8%-96.1%; P = .04) and MSI plus BRAF (91.4%; 95% CI, 81.0%-97.1%; P = .07). Tumor sequencing had equal specificity (95.3%; 95% CI, 92.6%-97.2%) to IHC plus BRAF (94.6%; 95% CI, 91.9%-96.6%; P > .99) and MSI plus BRAF (94.8%; 95% CI, 92.2%-96.8%; P = .88). Tumor sequencing identified 284 cases with KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF mutations that could affect therapy for stage IV CRC, avoiding another test. Finally, TS identified 8 patients with germline DPYD mutations that confer toxicity to fluorouracil chemotherapy, which could also be useful for treatment selection. Conclusions and Relevance: Up-front TS in CRC is simpler and has superior sensitivity to current multitest approaches to LS screening, while simultaneously providing critical information for treatment selection.

Prevalence and Spectrum of Germline Cancer Susceptibility Gene Mutations Among Patients With Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Hereditary cancer syndromes infer high cancer risks and require intensive cancer surveillance, yet the prevalence and spectrum of these conditions among unselected patients with early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely undetermined. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency and spectrum of cancer susceptibility gene mutations among patients with early-onset CRC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Overall, 450 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer younger than 50 years were prospectively accrued from 51 hospitals into the Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative from January 1, 2013, to June 20, 2016. Mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency was determined by microsatellite instability and/or immunohistochemistry. Germline DNA was tested for mutations in 25 cancer susceptibility genes using next-generation sequencing. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Mutation prevalence and spectrum in patients with early-onset CRC was determined. Clinical characteristics were assessed by mutation status. RESULTS: In total 450 patients younger than 50 years were included in the study, and 75 gene mutations were found in 72 patients (16%). Forty-eight patients (10.7%) had MMR-deficient tumors, and 40 patients (83.3%) had at least 1 gene mutation: 37 had Lynch syndrome (13, MLH1 [including one with constitutional MLH1 methylation]; 16, MSH2; 1, MSH2/monoallelic MUTYH; 2, MSH6; 5, PMS2); 1 patient had the APC c.3920T>A, p.I1307K mutation and a PMS2 variant; 9 patients (18.8%) had double somatic MMR mutations (including 2 with germline biallelic MUTYH mutations); and 1 patient had somatic MLH1 methylation. Four hundred two patients (89.3%) had MMR-proficient tumors, and 32 patients (8%) had at least 1 gene mutation: 9 had mutations in high-penetrance CRC genes (5, APC; 1, APC/PMS2; 2, biallelic MUTYH; 1, SMAD4); 13 patients had mutations in high- or moderate-penetrance genes not traditionally associated with CRC (3, ATM; 1, ATM/CHEK2; 2, BRCA1; 4, BRCA2; 1, CDKN2A; 2, PALB2); 10 patients had mutations in low-penetrance CRC genes (3, APC c.3920T>A, p.I1307K; 7, monoallelic MUTYH). Importantly, 24 of 72 patients (33.3%) who were mutation positive did not meet established genetic testing criteria for the gene(s) in which they had a mutation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Of 450 patients with early-onset CRC, 72 (16%) had gene mutations. Given the high frequency and wide spectrum of mutations, genetic counseling and testing with a multigene panel could be considered for all patients with early-onset CRC.

Family Studies for Classification of Variants of Uncertain Classification: Current Laboratory Clinical Practice and a New Web-Based Educational Tool.

Multi-gene cancer panels often identify variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS) that pose a challenge to health care providers in managing a patient's cancer risk. Family segregation analysis can yield powerful data to re-classify a VUS (as either benign or pathogenic). However, financial and personnel resources to coordinate these studies are limited. In an informal assessment we found that family studies for variant classification are done by most clinical genetics laboratories that offer hereditary cancer panel testing. The process for family studies differs substantially across laboratories. One near universal limitation is that families usually have too few individuals for an informative co-segregation analysis. A unique and potential resource-saving approach is to engage patients and their families in expanding their own pedigrees for segregation analysis of their VUS. We describe a novel public educational tool ( FindMyVariant.org ) designed to inform patients and genetic counselors about strategies to improve the probability of variant classification using familial segregation. While the web tool is designed to be useful for any gene, the project was primarily focused on VUS's returned in cancer risk genes. FindMyVariant.org is a resource for genetic providers to offer motivated families who are willing to gather information about their family relationships and history. Working alongside clinical or research genetic laboratories, the information they collect may help reclassify their VUS using segregation analysis.

Frequent PIK3CA Mutations in Colorectal and Endometrial Tumors With 2 or More Somatic Mutations in Mismatch Repair Genes.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Some colorectal and endometrial tumors with microsatellite instability not attributable to MLH1 hypermethylation or germline mutations contain 2 or more somatic mutations in genes encoding mismatch repair (MMR) proteins. We sought to define the molecular phenotype of this newly recognized tumor subtype. METHODS: From 2 prospective studies of the efficacy of screening for Lynch syndrome, we identified patients with colorectal and endometrial tumors who had 2 or more somatic (but not germline) mutations in genes encoding MMR proteins (double somatic). We determined the frequencies of tumor mutations in PIK3CA, BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, and PTEN by targeted next-generation sequencing and used logistic-regression models to compare them with those from patients with Lynch syndrome, MLH1-hypermethylated, or microsatellite-stable tumors. We validated our findings using independent data sets from The Cancer Genome Atlas. RESULTS: Among colorectal cancer cases, we found that 14 of 21 (67%) patients with double somatic tumors also had PIK3CA mutations, compared with 4 of 18 (22%) tumors from patients with Lynch syndrome, 2 of 10 (20%) tumors with MLH1 hypermethylation, and 12 of 78 (15%) tumors with microsatellite stability (P < .0001 for patients with double somatic tumors vs other subgroups). Mutations in PIK3CA were detected in all 13 patients with double somatic endometrial cancers (P = .04 compared with other subgroups). We did not detect BRAF mutations in patients with double somatic colorectal tumors or Lynch syndrome. We found highly similar results in a validation cohort from The Cancer Genome Atlas (113 patients with colorectal tumors, 178 endometrial tumors); 100% of double somatic cases had a somatic mutation in PIK3CA (P < .0001 compared with other subgroups). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with colorectal or endometrial tumors with 2 or more somatic (but not germline) mutations in MMR proteins also have mutations in PIK3CA; mutations in PIK3CA are detected at substantially higher frequencies in these double somatic tumors than in other microsatellite-instability subgroups. PIK3CA mutation status might be used to identify a specific group of colorectal tumors, and to select treatment or determine prognosis.

Improving performance of multigene panels for genomic analysis of cancer predisposition.

PURPOSE: Screening multiple genes for inherited cancer predisposition expands opportunities for cancer prevention; however, reports of variants of uncertain significance (VUS) may limit clinical usefulness. We used an expert-driven approach, exploiting all available information, to evaluate multigene panels for inherited cancer predisposition in a clinical series that included multiple cancer types and complex family histories. METHODS: For 1,462 sequential patients referred for testing by BROCA or ColoSeq multigene panels, genomic DNA was sequenced and variants were interpreted by multiple experts using International Agency for Research on Cancer guidelines and incorporating evolutionary conservation, known and predicted variant consequences, and personal and family cancer history. Diagnostic yield was evaluated for various presenting conditions and family-history profiles. RESULTS: Of 1,462 patients, 12% carried damaging mutations in established cancer genes. Diagnostic yield varied by clinical presentation. Actionable results were identified for 13% of breast and colorectal cancer patients and for 4% of cancer-free subjects, based on their family histories of cancer. Incidental findings explaining cancer in neither the patient nor the family were present in 1.7% of subjects. Less than 1% of patients carried VUS in BRCA1 or BRCA2. For all genes combined, initial reports contained VUS for 10.5% of patients, which declined to 7.5% of patients after reclassification based on additional information. CONCLUSIONS: Individualized interpretation of gene panels is a complex medical activity. Interpretation by multiple experts in the context of personal and family histories maximizes actionable results and minimizes reports of VUS.Genet Med 18 10, 974-981.

Initiation of universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer patients as a model for the implementation of genetic information into clinical oncology practice.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome confers a hereditary predisposition to colorectal and other cancers. Universal tumor screening (UTS) for Lynch syndrome is recommended by several professional societies, but the implementation can be complex. This article describes the evaluation, process development, and initiation of Lynch syndrome UTS at a tertiary referral cancer center. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team developed the new process design. Issues in 5 themes were noted: timing, funding, second-opinion patients, result processing, and the role of genetics providers. A committee approach was used to examine each issue for process-improvement development. RESULTS: The issues related to testing were addressed individually for the successful implementation of UTS at the institutional level. In the conventional-care period, 9 of 30 cases (30%) received Lynch syndrome screening, and 4 cases were referred to medical genetics. During the 6 months following the implementation of UTS, 32 of 44 patients (73%) received Lynch syndrome screening. The 13 unscreened patients all had identified reasons for nonscreening (eg, financial limitations). Ten patients were referred to medical genetics, which identified no new cases of Lynch syndrome, but a low-risk adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) variant was detected in 1 individual. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of effective Lynch syndrome UTS can feasibly alter practice at the institutional level. This experience with the assessment and management of issues relevant to the successful implementation of a new clinical care paradigm based on emerging technology has implications for the uptake of advances across molecular oncology into clinical practice, and this is highly relevant in the current era of rapidly evolving genomic technology.

Deep sequencing with intronic capture enables identification of an APC exon 10 inversion in a patient with polyposis.

PURPOSE: Single-exon inversions have rarely been described in clinical syndromes and are challenging to detect using Sanger sequencing. We report the case of a 40-year-old woman with adenomatous colon polyps too numerous to count and who had a complex inversion spanning the entire exon 10 in APC (the gene encoding for adenomatous polyposis coli), causing exon skipping and resulting in a frameshift and premature protein truncation. METHODS: In this study, we employed complete APC gene sequencing using high-coverage next-generation sequencing by ColoSeq, analysis with BreakDancer and SLOPE software, and confirmatory transcript analysis. RESULTS: ColoSeq identified a complex small genomic rearrangement consisting of an inversion that results in translational skipping of exon 10 in the APC gene. This mutation would not have been detected by traditional sequencing or gene-dosage methods. CONCLUSION: We report a case of adenomatous polyposis resulting from a complex single-exon inversion. Our report highlights the benefits of large-scale sequencing methods that capture intronic sequences with high enough depth of coverage-as well as the use of informatics tools-to enable detection of small pathogenic structural rearrangements.

Large numbers of individuals are required to classify and define risk for rare variants in known cancer risk genes.

PURPOSE: Up to half of unique genetic variants in genomic evaluations of familial cancer risk will be rare variants of uncertain significance. Classification of rare variants will be an ongoing issue as genomic testing becomes more common. METHODS: We modified standard power calculations to explore sample sizes necessary to classify and estimate relative disease risk for rare variant frequencies (0.001-0.00001) and varying relative risk (20-1.5), using population-based and family-based designs focusing on breast and colon cancer. We required 80% power and tolerated a 10% false-positive rate because variants tested will be in known genes with high pretest probability. RESULTS: Using population-based strategies, hundreds to millions of cases are necessary to classify rare cancer variants. Larger samples are necessary for less frequent and less penetrant variants. Family-based strategies are robust to changes in variant frequency and require between 8 and 1,175 individuals, depending on risk. CONCLUSION: It is unlikely that most rare missense variants will be classifiable in the near future, and accurate relative risk estimates may never be available for very rare variants. This knowledge may alter strategies for communicating information about variants of uncertain significance to patients.