Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Histopathology ; 79(5): 690-699, 2021 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33872400

RESUMO

AIMS: Screening all patients newly diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) for possible Lynch syndrome (LS) has been recommended in the United Kingdom since the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) released new diagnostics guidance in February 2017. We sought to validate the NICE screening pathway through a prospective regional programme throughout a 5.2-million population during a 2-year period. METHODS AND RESULTS: Pathology departments at 14 hospital trusts in the Yorkshire and Humber region of the United Kingdom were invited to refer material from patients with newly diagnosed CRC aged 50 years or over between 1 April 2017 and 31 March 2019 for LS screening. Testing consisted of immunohistochemistry for MLH1, PMS2, MSH2 and MSH6 followed by BRAF mutation analysis ± MLH1 promoter methylation testing in cases showing MLH1 loss. A total of 3141 individual specimens were submitted for testing from 12 departments consisting of 3061 unique tumours and 2791 prospectively acquired patients with CRC. Defective mismatch repair (dMMR) was observed in 15% of cases. In cases showing MLH1 loss, 76% contained a detectable BRAF mutation and, of the remainder, 77% showed MLH1 promoter hypermethylation. Of the patients included in the final analysis, 81 (2.9%) had an indication for germline testing. CONCLUSION: LS screening using the NICE diagnostics guidance pathway is deliverable at scale identifying significant numbers of patients with dMMR. This information is used to refer patients to regional clinical genetics services in addition to informing treatment pathways including the use of adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais Hereditárias sem Polipose/diagnóstico , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Testes Genéticos/métodos , Adulto , Idoso , Biomarcadores Tumorais/genética , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorretais/genética , Neoplasias Colorretais Hereditárias sem Polipose/genética , Metilação de DNA , Reparo de Erro de Pareamento de DNA/genética , Feminino , Predisposição Genética para Doença , Humanos , Imuno-Histoquímica , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Proteína 1 Homóloga a MutL/genética , Mutação , Estudos Prospectivos , Proteínas Proto-Oncogênicas B-raf/genética , Reino Unido
2.
J Clin Pathol ; 76(8): 548-554, 2023 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35256486

RESUMO

AIMS: FOCUS4 was a phase II/III umbrella trial, recruiting patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, between 2014 and 2020. Molecular profiling of patients' formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumour blocks was undertaken at two centralised biomarker laboratories (Leeds and Cardiff), and the results fed directly to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, and used for subsequent randomisation. Here the laboratories discuss their experiences. METHODS: Following successful tumour content assessment, blocks were sectioned for DNA extraction and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Pyrosequencing was initially used to determine tumour mutation status (KRAS, NRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA), then from 2018 onwards, next-generation sequencing was employed to allow the inclusion of TP53. Protein expression of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 and pTEN was determined by IHC. An interlaboratory comparison programme was initiated, allowing sample exchanges, to ensure continued assay robustness. RESULTS: 1291 tumour samples were successfully analysed. Assay failure rates were very low; 1.9%-3.3% for DNA sequencing and 0.9%-1.3% for IHC. Concordance rates of >98% were seen for the interlaboratory comparisons, where a result was obtained by both laboratories. CONCLUSIONS: Practical and logistical problems were identified, including poor sample quality and difficulties with sample anonymisation. The often last-minute receipt of a sample for testing and a lack of integration with National Health Service mutation analysis services were challenging. The laboratories benefitted from both pretrial validations and interlaboratory comparisons, resulting in robust assay development and provided confidence during the implementation of new sequencing technologies. We conclude that our centralised approach to biomarker testing in FOCUS4 was effective and successful.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais , Humanos , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorretais/genética , Neoplasias Colorretais/tratamento farmacológico , Laboratórios , Medicina Estatal , Proteínas Proto-Oncogênicas B-raf/genética , Mutação , Biomarcadores Tumorais/genética , Biomarcadores Tumorais/metabolismo
3.
Clin Cancer Res ; 27(8): 2246-2254, 2021 04 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33658300

RESUMO

PURPOSE: There is potential for fecal microbiome profiling to improve colorectal cancer screening. This has been demonstrated by research studies, but it has not been quantified at scale using samples collected and processed routinely by a national screening program. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Between 2016 and 2019, the largest of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme hubs prospectively collected processed guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) samples with subsequent colonoscopy outcomes: blood-negative [n = 491 (22%)]; colorectal cancer [n = 430 (19%)]; adenoma [n = 665 (30%)]; colonoscopy-normal [n = 300 (13%)]; nonneoplastic [n = 366 (16%)]. Samples were transported and stored at room temperature. DNA underwent 16S rRNA gene V4 amplicon sequencing. Taxonomic profiling was performed to provide features for classification via random forests (RF). RESULTS: Samples provided 16S amplicon-based microbial profiles, which confirmed previously described colorectal cancer-microbiome associations. Microbiome-based RF models showed potential as a first-tier screen, distinguishing colorectal cancer or neoplasm (colorectal cancer or adenoma) from blood-negative with AUC 0.86 (0.82-0.89) and AUC 0.78 (0.74-0.82), respectively. Microbiome-based models also showed potential as a second-tier screen, distinguishing from among gFOBT blood-positive samples, colorectal cancer or neoplasm from colonoscopy-normal with AUC 0.79 (0.74-0.83) and AUC 0.73 (0.68-0.77), respectively. Models remained robust when restricted to 15 taxa, and performed similarly during external validation with metagenomic datasets. CONCLUSIONS: Microbiome features can be assessed using gFOBT samples collected and processed routinely by a national colorectal cancer screening program to improve accuracy as a first- or second-tier screen. The models required as few as 15 taxa, raising the potential of an inexpensive qPCR test. This could reduce the number of colonoscopies in countries that use fecal occult blood test screening.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Microbioma Gastrointestinal , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Colonoscopia , Neoplasias Colorretais/microbiologia , DNA Bacteriano/isolamento & purificação , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/estatística & dados numéricos , Inglaterra , Fezes/microbiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Sangue Oculto , Estudos Prospectivos , RNA Ribossômico 16S/genética , Medicina Estatal
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA