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.

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.

Birt-Hogg-Dubé Syndrome and Hereditary Leiomyomatosis and Renal Cell Carcinoma Syndrome: An Effective Multidisciplinary Approach to Hereditary Renal Cancer Predisposing Syndromes.

AIM: We aimed to describe and analyse clinical features, characteristics, and adherence to surveillance guidelines in an Australian Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome (BHD) and hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC) cohort. METHODS: All identified patients with a diagnosis of BHD or HLRCC at RBWH 01/01/2014-01/09/2019 were included (HREC/17/QRBW/276). All patients were initially assessed and counselled by a clinical geneticist and then referred to an adult nephrologist. Baseline and incidental clinical variables were extracted and analysed. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were identified (28 BHD, 29 HLRCC) with a median age of 47 years. The median and cumulative follow-up were 1 and 99 years, respectively. Baseline renal MRI occurred in 40/57 patients, and 33/57 had regular MRI as per the national guidelines (eviQ). Of 18/57 without baseline imaging, nine were yet to have imaging, seven were lost follow-up, and two patients had logistic difficulties. RCC was diagnosed in 11/57 patients: two of 28 with BHD were diagnosed with RCC aged 73 and 77, both prior to commencement of surveillance. Nine of 29 patients with HLRCC were diagnosed with RCC (one of 29 during surveillance at 47 years of age) and eight of 29 prior to commencement of surveillance (11-55 years). Amongst BHD patients, cutaneous fibrofolliculomas were noted in 15 patients, lung cysts were detected in seven patients, spontaneous pneumothoraces in five patients, and parotid oncocytoma in two of 28. Amongst those with HLRCC, cutaneous leiomyomas were noted in 19/29, cutaneous leiomyosarcoma diagnosed in one of 29, and uterine fibroids in 13 female patients. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based RCC screening in BHD and HLRCC cohort is feasible and able to identify incidental renal lesions. Multidisciplinary patient management enables expedited genetic counselling, diagnosis, longitudinal screening, and RCC management. The success of this clinical model warrants consideration of undertaking longitudinal screening of BHD and HLRCC patients by nephrologists.

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.