ONCOLOGY. Vol. 19 No. 4

Pages: 1 2

REVIEW ARTICLE

What the Physician Needs to Know About Lynch Syndrome: An Update

By Henry T. Lynch, MD, Jane F. Lynch, BSN | April 1, 2005

¹Professor and Chairman, Department of Preventive Medicine, Professor of Medicine ²Instructor, Department of Preventive Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska

Clinical Translation of Molecular Genetic Knowledge

Ramaswamy[32] has expressed extreme optimism regarding the current diagnosis and treatment of cancer, translating our increased comprehension of the human genome and advances in molecular technology into improvements in the individual patient's diagnosis and management. This molecular revolution may lead to a sea change from population-based risk assessment and empiric treatment to that of a more highly predictive individualized model based on molecular diagnosis and targeted cancer treatment. Predictably, such a personalized approach will not only increase the efficacy of treatment, but it should also decrease toxicity and cost.

This knowledge has recently been applied by Lossos et al[33] through the study of gene expression signatures, which were used to predict the prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, wherein six genes were found to be sufficient to predict overall survival. This approach has also led to research showing that fluorouracil(Drug information on fluorouracil) (5-FU), while proven advantageous to the treatment of CRC in general, may not be appropriate in Lynch syndrome patients with CRC tumors showing high-frequency microsatellite instability.[34,35]

Studies have strongly supported the hypothesis that CRCs with high-frequency microsatellite instability may be more immunogenic than microsatellite stable tumors. This finding has been ascribed to the increased numbers of activated cytotoxic lymphocytes in CRC tissues.[36]

Founder Mutations and the Lynch Syndrome

Founder mutation studies have many advantages compared to genetic testing in unrelated populations. For example, founder mutations enable more efficient identification of relatives who are at increased hereditary cancer risk and who thereby can benefit from genetic counseling in concert with highly targeted surveillance and management.

With respect to the Lynch syndrome, there have been at least five examples of founder mutations. In the Finns, one germ-line MLH1 mutation has been found to account for as many as half of all Lynch syndrome cases, while another was found to account for 15% to 20%.[37] Other founder mutations in the Lynch syndrome include an MSH2 germ-line mutation first detected in a large kindred in Newfoundland,[ 38] subsequently found to be widespread in that population through a founder effect.[39] Interestingly, this mutation has been seen in many other populations as well, and actually arises de novo with appreciable frequency.[40,41] Thus, this mutation is a recurrent one worldwide, but its spread in Newfoundland is by the founder mechanism. A mutation of MLH1 is widespread in the Valais region of Switzerland,[42] and a recently identified mutation in MSH2 may account for as many as one-third of all Lynch syndrome cases in the Ashkenazi Jewish population.[43]

Lynch et al[44] have described another example of the founder mutation phenomenon. This instance involves a mutation-namely MSH2 del 1-6-in nine families that have been tracked from their "founder" in Germany in the 18th century through their migrations to and within the United States until the present day.[45]

Practical Diagnostic Strategies

Criteria and Guidelines

TABLE 2

Amsterdam I and II Criteria, and Bethesda Guidelines

Several different sets of criteria and guidelines have been developed in the hope of resolving some of Lynch syndrome's diagnostic pitfalls. The most commonly used-the Amsterdam I and Amsterdam II criteria, and the Bethesda guidelines-are shown in Table 2.[46-48]

Pattern Recognition

For diagnostic purposes, one may also consider so-called "pattern recognition" of the cancer phenotype in probands and their immediate firstand second-degree relatives. Thus, the presence of a striking phenotype such as proximal CRC occurring before age 40, possibly metachronous CRC, mucoid features with signet cell pathology, or the early onset of one or more colonic adenomas, even in only a single first- or second-degree relative, should prompt further investigation of the possibility of Lynch syndrome, even though the findings may fail to qualify for the Amsterdam Criteria or Bethesda Guidelines (Table 2).

The presence in even one relative in a pedigree showing early age of CRC onset, and/or one or more key extracolonic cancer types, should raise a high index of suspicion for a Lynch syndrome diagnosis. This is clearly illustrated by the pedigree shown in Figure 2,[49] which reveals multiple primary cancer and extracolonic cancer types that constitute the Lynch syndrome. Noteworthy in this pedigree is the presence of patients with the Muir-Torre syndrome variant of the Lynch syndrome (sebaceous adenomas, sebaceous carcinomas, and multiple keratoacanthomas in concert with visceral cancer).

FIGURE 2

Multiple Primary Cancer and Extracolonic Cancer Types

Microsatellite instability testing of the CRC tissue block should be made and, if positive, one should then search for a germ-line mutation in a mismatch repair gene.[7,8,50] Finally, given the relatively high frequency of CRC in the general population, certain HNPCC-like families may be attributed to chance alone, or there may be cancer phenotypes (such as those attributable to the MSH6 mutation) that constitute an atypical or more benign form of HNPCC.[24,51]

Cancer Control in Lynch Syndrome

Cancer-related morbidity and mortality may be reduced significantly through highly targeted surveillance measures that are based on knowledge of the natural history and cardinal features of the Lynch syndrome (Table 1). Particularly important is full colonoscopy (due to the syndrome's predilection toward proximal CRC), initiated at the age of 25 years (due to early onset of CRC) and repeated annually (due to accelerated carcinogenesis). In women, endometrial aspiration biopsy and transvaginal ultrasound are important, given the extraordinarily high risk for endometrial and ovarian carcinoma. These cancer-control strategies have a strong impact on family members at risk once they have been counseled and educated thoroughly about Lynch syndrome's natural history and their own hereditary cancer risk.

Järvinen and colleagues[52] demonstrated the benefit of colonoscopic screening in HNPCC through a controlled clinical trial extending over 15 years. The incidence of CRC was compared in two cohorts of at-risk members of 22 HNPCC families. CRC developed in 8 screened subjects (6%), compared with 19 unscreened controls (16%; P = .014). The CRC rate was reduced by 62% in those who were screened. All CRCs in the screened group were local, causing no deaths, compared with nine deaths caused by CRC in the controls. The researchers concluded that CRC screening at 3- year intervals reduces the risk of CRC by more than half, prevents CRC deaths, and decreases overall mortality by about 65% in HNPCC families. The relatively high incidence of CRC even in the screened subjects (albeit without deaths) argues for shorter screening intervals (eg, 1 year). Indeed, Vasen and colleagues[53] discovered five cancers in Lynch syndrome patients within a 3½-year interval following a normal colonoscopy.

Prophylactic Colectomy

Subtotal colectomy as a prophylactic measure among HNPCC patients remains controversial. However, in special circumstances, patients who carry germ-line mismatch repair cancer- causing mutations should be offered this option as an alternative to lifetime colonoscopic surveillance. Church[54] and Lynch[55] have suggested that prophylactic surgery should be an option for patients who are likely to show reduced compliance with colonoscopy. Genetic counseling, coupled with a second surgical opinion, must be provided so that patients can evaluate the various available surgical management strategies.

Prophylactic Hysterectomy and Oophorectomy

Women at risk for Lynch syndrome should have annual screening for endometrial and ovarian cancer beginning at age 30 to 35 years. Endometrial aspiration coupled with transvaginal ultrasound is advised for screening. CA-125 testing should be performed semiannually for ovarian cancer. Women must be advised of the marked limitations in ovarian cancer screening. Prophylactic hysterectomy and oophorectomy can be considered when childbearing is completed.

Discussion

The cancer genetics diagnostician has often been thought of as someone who is obsessed with the minutiae of the cancer family history, which were believed by many colleagues to be of only minor public health significance. But no longer! The magnitude of hereditary cancer problems now compels physicians to be more strongly focused upon these concerns. Indeed, the public is demanding this attention, and malpractice attorneys are learning to deal with these multifaceted issues.[56,57]

On a more positive note, molecular geneticists have discovered countless deleterious germ-line mutations that have enabled the identification, diagnosis, and management of an increasing number of hereditary cancer syndromes. When used effectively in the clinical practice setting by informed physicians, these discoveries can significantly enhance medical management of hereditary cancer-prone families. For example, the presence of a cancer-causing mutation in a patient with a hereditary cancer syndrome enables the knowledgeable physician to offer that individual appropriate surveillance and management procedures. Conversely, in a family where a known cancer-causing mutation exists, the absence of that mutation in a family member means that general population cancer guidelines can be utilized for that individual. Such common hereditary cancers as those of the colon and endometrium in patients with Lynch syndrome (ie, MSH2, MLH1, and MSH6 mutations), and of the breast and ovary in patients with HBOC syndrome (ie, BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations) head the list of cancer disorders that are amenable to highly targeted surveillance protocols.

Research at the basic science level should one day lead to the identification of those presently elusive germline variants that confer an increased susceptibility (or resistance) to cancer. This will require a better elucidation of the myriad complex somatic genetic events that occur in the emerging cell. With increasing knowledge about cancer causality at the molecular level during the past decade, the clinical translation of cancer "running in families" has become a source of major contention.[15]

Barriers to Cancer Control

Unfortunately, these cancer control opportunities may be seriously compromised given most physicians' limited knowledge or interest in what constitutes a hereditary cancer syndrome, and the significance of highly targeted cancer surveillance and specialized management protocols for particular disorders.[58] Further confounders to cancer control center around the perception of many patients at risk for hereditary cancer that participating in genetic testing, genetic counseling, and pertinent clinical cancer control measures will identify them as being a member of a family with a hereditary cancer-prone syndrome. They may then reason that this information will result in discrimination by insurance companies or employers. To help ameliorate these concerns, we need legislation that will provide protection from such potential discrimination.

Future Projections

Finally, there remain countless areas in the etiology, pathogenesis, and control of HNPCC that require continued intensive research. Some of the questions to be answered are:
(1) What is the complete tumor complement of HNPCC? (2) What are the chemotherapy and chemoprevention implications of this disease? (3) Can we improve surveillance/ management strategies? (4) Can we achieve molecular-based chemoprevention? (5) What are the genotypic and phenotypic heterogeneity implications of Lynch syndrome? (6) What are the differential diagnostic implications of the disease?

Our research efforts and those of colleagues throughout the world have only grazed the tip of the proverbial iceberg in terms of the etiology, pathogenesis, surveillance, and management of Lynch syndrome. What we do know clearly is that the knowledge accrued to date, when translated clinically, can save lives!

Financial Disclosure: The authors have no significant financial interest or other relationship with the manufacturers of any products or providers of any service mentioned in this article.

Acknowledgement: This manuscript was supported by revenue from Nebraska cigarette taxes awarded to Creighton University by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the State of Nebraska or the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. Support was also received from NIH Grant #1U01 CA86389, and through a grant awarded by the Jacqueline Seroussi Memorial Foundation.

Pages: 1 2

by Virginia Thomson | August 18, 2010 1:53 AM EDT

I carry the MSH2 mutation. I have no Askenazi heritage, but this line has been traced back to 1838, my great, great grandfather, a Scot who emigrated to Australia.

This article indicates a large kindred in Newfoundland, (38) through a founder effect.

As Newfoundland was largely populated by Scots, is it reasonable to assume that there would also be similar numbers in Scotland?

I am unable to determine what part of Scotland my ancestor came from, but this mutation has now been verified in 6 generations.

My email address is

mikevirg@optusnet.com.au but I don't know whether or not you answer these types of questions.

I would be pleased to hear something!

Thanks

Virginia Thomson

This article reviewed

Commentary (Gruber et al)—What the Physician Needs to Know About Lynch Syndrome: An Update

Commentary (Pendergrass/Griffin): What the Physician Needs to Know About Lynch Syndrome: An Update

STEPHEN B. GRUBER, MD, PhD, MPH, JOANNE M. JETER, MD and JULIE A. DOUGLAS, PhD
CHERYL J. PENDERGRASS, MS and CONSTANCE A. GRIFFIN, MD

1. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, et al: Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 55:10-30, 2005.
2. Lynch HT, Riley BD, Weissman SM, et al: Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma (HNPCC) and HNPCC-like families: Problems in diagnosis, surveillance, and management. Cancer 100:53-64, 2004.
3. Calvert PM, Frucht H: The genetics of colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med 137:603-612, 2002.
4. Peto J, Houlston RS: Genetics and the common cancers. Eur J Cancer 37(suppl 8):S88-S96, 2001.
5. Peto J, Mack TM: High constant incidence in twins and other relatives of women with breast cancer. Nat Genet 26:411-414, 2000.
6. The Anglian Breast Cancer Study Group: Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a large population-based series of breast cancer cases. Br J Cancer 83:1301-1308, 2000.
7. Lynch HT, de la Chapelle A: Genetic susceptibility to non-polyposis colorectal cancer. J Med Genet 36:801-818, 1999.
8. Lynch HT, de la Chapelle A: Genomic medicine: Hereditary colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 348:919-932, 2003.
9. Houlston RS, Peto J: The future of association studies of common cancers. Hum Genet 112:434-435, 2003.
10. Lynch HT, Brand RE, Hogg D, et al: Phenotypic variation in eight extended CDKN2A germline mutation familial atypical multiple mole melanoma-pancreatic carcinoma- prone families: The familial atypical multiple mole melanoma-pancreatic carcinoma syndrome. Cancer 94:84-96, 2002.
11. Herrera L (ed): Familial Adenomatous Polyposis. New York, Alan R. Liss Inc, 1990.
12. Lynch HT, Lemon SJ, Durham C, et al: A descriptive study of BRCA1 testing and reactions to disclosure of test results. Cancer 79:2219-2228, 1997.
13. Lynch HT, Watson P, Tinley S, et al: An update on DNA-based BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic counseling in hereditary breast cancer. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 109:91-98, 1999.
14. Lynch HT, Snyder CL, Lynch JF, et al: Hereditary breast-ovarian cancer at the bedside: Role of the medical oncologist. J Clin Oncol 21:740-753, 2003.
15. Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW (eds): The Genetic Basis of Human Cancer. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1998.
16. Watson P, Narod SA, Fodde R, et al: Carrier risk status changes resulting from mutation testing in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer and hereditary breast-ovarian cancer. Am J Hum Genet 40:591-596, 2003.
17. Nicolaides NC, Papadopoulos N, Liu B, et al: Mutations of two PMS homologues in hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Nature 371:75-80, 1994.
18. Bronner CE, Baker SM, Morrison PT, et al: Mutation in the DNA mismatch repair gene homologue hMLH1 is associated with hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Nature 368:258-261, 1994.
19. Fishel R, Lescoe MK, Rao MR, et al: The human mutator gene homolog MSH2 and its association with hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Cell 75:1027-1038, 1993.
20. Akiyama Y, Sato H, Yamada T, et al: Germ-line mutation of the hMSH6/GTBP gene in an atypical hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer kindred. Cancer Res 57:3920- 3923, 1997.
21. Miyaki M, Konishi M, Tanaka K, et al: Germline mutation of MSH6 as the cause of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Nat Genet 17:271-272, 1997.
22. Lipkin SM, Wang V, Jacoby R, et al: MLH3: A DNA mismatch repair gene associated with mammalian microsatellite instability. Nat Genet 24:27-34, 2000.
23. de la Chapelle A: Microsatellite instability phenotype of tumors: Genotyping or immunohistochemistry? The jury is still out. J Clin Oncol 20:897-899, 2002.
24. Wijnen J, de Leeuw W, Vasen H, et al: Familial endometrial cancer in female carriers of MSH6 germline mutations. Nat Genet 23:142-144, 1999.
25. Watson P, Ashwathnarayan R, Lynch HT, et al: Tobacco use is associated with increased colorectal cancer risk in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome). Arch Intern Med 164:2429-2431, 2004.
26. Peltomäki P, Vasen HF, International Collaborative Group on Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer: Mutations predisposing to hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: Database and results of a collaborative study. Gastroenterology 113:1146-1158, 1997.
27. Suter CM, Martin DIK, Ward RL: Germline epimutation of MLH1 in individuals with multiple cancers. Nat Genet 36:497-501, 2004.
28. Laken SJ, Petersen GM, Gruber SB, et al: Familial colorectal cancer in Ashkenazim due to a hypermutable tract in APC. Nat Genet 17:79-83.
29. Al-Tassan N, Chmiel NH, Maynard J, et al: Inherited variants of MYH associated with somatic G:C —> T:A mutations in colorectal tumors. Nat Genet 30:227-232, 2002.
30. Sieber OM, Lipton L, Crabtree M, et al: Multiple colorectal adenomas, classic adenomatous polyposis, and germline mutations in MYH. N Engl J Med 348:791-799, 2003.
31. Lynch HT: Family Information Service and hereditary cancer. Cancer 91:625-628, 2001.
32. Ramaswamy S: Translating cancer genomics into clinical oncology. N Engl J Med 350:1814-1816, 2004.
33. Lossos IS, Czerwinski DK, Alizadeh AA, et al: Prediction of survival in diffuse large-Bcell lymphoma based on the expression of six genes. N Engl J Med 350:1828-1837, 2004.
34. Ribic CM, Sargent DJ, Moore MJ, et al: Tumor microsatellite-instability status as a predictor of benefit from fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 349:247-257, 2003.
35. Carethers JM, Smith J, Behling CA, et al: Use of 5-fluorouracil and survival in patients with microsatellite-unstable colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 126:394-401, 2004.
36. Phillips SM, Banerjea A, Feakins R, et al: Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes in colorectal cancer with microsatellite instability are activated and cytotoxic. Br J Surg 91:469-475, 2004.
37. Nystrom-Lahti M, Kristo P, Nicolaides NC, et al: Founding mutations and Alu-mediated recombination in hereditary colon cancer. Nat Med 1:1203-1206, 1995.
38. Peltomäki P, Aaltonen L, Sistonen P, et al: Genetic mapping of a locus predisposing to human colorectal cancer. Science 260:810-812, 1993.
39. Froggatt NJ, Green J, Brassett C, et al: A common MSH2 mutation in English and North American HNPCC families: Origin, phenotypic expression, and sex specific differences in colorectal cancer. J Med Genet 36:97-102, 1999.
40. Froggatt NJ, Joyce JA, Davies R, et al: A frequent hMSH2 mutation in hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer syndrome. Lancet 345:727, 1995.
41.Desai DC, Lockman JC, Chadwick RB, et al: Recurrent germline mutation in MSH2 arises frequently de novo. J Med Genet 37:646- 652, 2000.
42. Hutter P, Courturier A, Scott RJ, et al: Complex genetic predisposition to cancer in an extended HNPCC family with an ancestral hMLH1 mutation. J Med Genet 33:636-640, 1996.
43. Foulkes WD, Thiffault I, Gruber SB, et al: The founder mutation MSH2 1906G—>C is an important cause of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. Am J Hum Genet 71:1395- 1412, 2002.
44. Lynch HT, Coronel SM, Okimoto R, et al: A founder mutation of the MSH2 gene and hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer in the United States. JAMA 291:718-724, 2004.
45. Wagner A, Barrows A, Wijnen JT, et al: Molecular analysis of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer in the United States: High mutation detection rate among clinically selected families and characterization of an American founder genomic deletion of the MSH2 gene. Am J Hum Genet 72:1088-1100, 2003.
46. Vasen HF, Mecklin J-P, Meera Khan P, et al: The International Collaborative Group on Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer (ICG-HNPCC). Dis Colon Rectum 34:424-425, 1991.
47. Vasen HF, Watson P, Mecklin J-P, et al: New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative Group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology 116:1453-1456, 1999.
48. Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Boland CR, Hamilton SR, et al: A National Cancer Institute workshop on hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: Meeting highlights and Bethesda Guidelines. J Natl Cancer Inst 89:1758-1762, 1997.
49. Lynch HT, Fusaro RM, Roberts L, et al: Muir-Torre syndrome in several members of a family with a variant of the Cancer Family Syndrome. Br J Dermatol 113:295-301, 1985.
50. Peltomäki P: Role of DNA mismatch repair defects in the pathogenesis of human cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:1174-1179, 2003.
51. Wagner A, Hendriks Y, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, et al: Atypical HNPCC owing to MSH6 germline mutations: Analysis of a large Dutch pedigree. J Med Genet 38:318-322, 2001.
52. Järvinen HJ, Aarnio M, Mustonen H, et al: Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 118:829-834, 2000.
53. Vasen HF, Nagengast FM, Khan PM: Interval cancers in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome). Lancet 345:1183-1184, 1995.
54. Church JM: Prophylactic colectomy in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Ann Med 28:479-482, 1996.
55. Lynch HT: Is there a role for prophylactic subtotal colectomy among hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer germline mutation carriers? Dis Colon Rectum 39:109-110, 1996.
56. Lynch HT, Paulson J, Severin M, et al: Failure to diagnose hereditary colorectal cancer and its medicolegal implications: A hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer case. Dis Colon Rectum 42:31-35, 1999.
57. Severin MJ: Genetic susceptibility for specific cancers. Medical liability of the clinician. Cancer 86:2564-2569, 1999.
58. Hadley DW, Jenkins J, Dimond E, et al: Genetic counseling and testing in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Arch Intern Med 163:573-582, 2003.