This review will discuss the molecular
basis of HNPCC-related malignancies
and will specifically focus
on the clinical relevance of mismatch
repair deficiency in sporadic and inherited
forms of endometrial and ovarian
cancer.
Molecular Biology of
Mismatch Repair
Mismatch repair genes function to
ensure fidelity of DNA replication in
cell division. Replication errors can
occur through mismatches produced
by physical or chemical alteration of
nucleotides, misincorporation of nu
cleotides during replication, and genetic
recombination events. There are
now seven mismatch repair genes that
have been investigated in cancers:
MLH1, MSH2, MSH3, MSH6, PMS1,
PMS2, and MLH3. Figure 1 illustrates
how these proteins normally function
as complexes to repair single-base
mismatches or insertion/deletion type
mutations. The fact that the majority
of MSI-positive tumors have MLH1
or MSH2 defects supports the unique
functionality of MLH1 and MSH2.
The MSH2/MSH6 and MSH2/MSH3
heterodimers function as sensors, recognizing
mismatched DNA, whereas
the MLH1/PMS2 heterodimer initiates
correction.[18]
Studies of mismatch repair gene
knockout mice have provided evidence
for the importance of an intact
DNA repair system in protecting
against cancer. Colon tumors form in
MSH2 null (both alleles deleted) mice
and demonstrate MSI.[19] By contrast,
MSH6 null mice tend to develop
tumors later in life, and these
tumors do not exhibit MSI.[20] Partial
functional redundancy between the
MSH2/MSH6 heterodimer and the
MSH2/MSH3 heterodimer explains
the low level of MSI found in MSH3
and MSH6 mutants.[21]
Accumulation of point mutations
and insertion/deletion (frameshift)
mutations in repeated DNA sequences
is detectable as MSI. Tumors demonstrating
MSI (mismatch repair
deficiency) show different polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) products at multiple
microsatellite sequences when
compared to the normal (nontumor)
DNA from the same patient (Figure 2).
A consensus panel of five microsatellite
markers has been established
(D2S123, D5S346, D17S250, Bat 25,
and Bat 26)[13] to facilitate and standardize
identification of tumors that
demonstrate MSI.
Mechanisms of Cancer FormationMismatch repair deficiency contributes to cancer formation through two distinct pathways (Figure 3, upper pathway). These pathways are likely related to each other; however, a well-defined molecular link between the two mechanisms has yet to be defined. In mismatch repair-deficient endometrial cancers, tumor-suppressor genes that contain coding sequence repeats such as PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homolog), BAX (BCL2- associated X protein), and IGF2R (insulin- like growth factor 2 receptor) may preferentially acquire mutations and ultimately lead to tumor formation.[ 22-24] With the exception of PTEN (which has been shown to be mutated in approximately 85% of hereditary endometrial cancers),[25] mutations in tumor suppressors and cell-cycle regulatory proteins in MSIpositive endometrial cancers are infrequent.[ 22,24,26] The alternative mechanism for how loss of DNA repair contributes to tumorigenesis (Figure 3, lower pathway) is that cells deficient in mismatch repair fail to activate apoptotic pathways in spite of overwhelming DNA damage.[27] Cell line studies provide evidence for the role of mismatch repair proteins in the cell death pathway. MSH2 null mouse embryonic fibroblasts do not undergo apoptosis in response to the DNA-damaging agent MNNG (N-methyl-N'-nitro-Nnitrosoguanidine), and overexpression of MSH2 or MLH1 can induce (rescue) apoptosis in MSI-positive or MSI-negative cells.[28] Tumor cell selection may therefore be initiated by a failure of defective mismatch repair proteins (MLH1 and MSH2) to stimulate existing apoptotic pathways.[ 27] As noted, MSI in hereditary cancer is associated with an underlying defect in one of the DNA mismatch repair genes. Sporadic (nonfamilial) endometrial tumors, however, rarely demonstrate mutations in these genes.[29-32] In sporadic endometrial cancers, it is much more common for MLH1 to be inactivated epigenetically through promoter hypermethylation. An estimated 70% to 90% of endometrial cancers with MSI demonstrate aberrant methylation of the MLH1 promoter.[33,34] Promoter hypermethylation in endometrial cancer is associated with loss of MLH1 expression.[35] The elevated cancer risk associated with the presence of both germline (HNPCC) coupled with the frequent somatic (epigenetic methylation) inactivation of the mismatch repair genes (MLH1) highlights the significance of these genes in tumorigenesis. Endometrial Cancer Genetic Susceptibility
Approximately 5% of all endometrial cancers result from inherited cancer susceptibility.[36] Of inherited endometrial cancers, an estimated 0.5% to 1.4%[5,6] are HNPCC-related. HNPCC is the best-understood inherited endometrial cancer susceptibility syndrome. Endometrial cancer is the most frequent extracolonic tumor in HNPCC,[2,3,17] and the cumulative lifetime risk of endometrial cancer in HNPCC families is high- approximately 40% to 60%.[3,14] Although the majority of germline mutations in HNPCC families are in MLH1 and MSH2,[8] families that carry germline mutations in MSH6 appear to have a preponderance of endometrial cancers regardless of whether or not they meet strict (Amsterdam) clinical criteria.[37,38] An analysis of 20 families with 146 MSH6 mutation carriers demonstrated an overall lower risk for all HNPCCrelated tumors but a significantly higher risk for endometrial cancer compared to MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers.[39]
Clinical criteria for diagnosing
HNPCC have broadened over time
(Table 3) to reflect the understanding
that there is genetic risk in patients
who do not meet strict (Amsterdam)
clinical diagnostic criteria. There are
at least three risk factors for having
germline (inherited) defects in one of
the mismatch repair genes. Genetic
susceptibility is found in patients who
develop endometrial cancer at a young
age (< 60 years old),[36,40] who
present with synchronous or metachronous
malignancies,[41] or whose
tumors demonstrate MSI without epigenetic
silencing of MLH1 (MLH1-
unmethylated tumors).[42]
Women who do not meet strict clinical
(Amsterdam) criteria for HNPCC
but have early-onset (< 60 years old)
disease appear to have increased familial
clustering of malignancies. In
a large phone survey of 455 women
with early-onset endometrial cancer
(20-54 years old) compared with over
3,000 age-matched controls, the odds
ratio for endometrial cancer in a firstdegree
relative was 2.8 (95% confidence
interval [CI] = 1.9-4.2), and the
odds ratio for colorectal cancer within
the same family was 1.9 (95% CI =
1.1-3.3).[40] Another study examined
291 early-onset (< 60 years old) endometrial
cancer cases with available
parental data. Nine kindreds (3.1%)
met clinical criteria for HNPCC, and
an additional 3% had familial clustering
of malignancies.[36]
Patients with double primary malignancies
of the colon and endometrium
are another subgroup at-risk for
inherited cancer susceptibility. In a
study of 40 unrelated women with
colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer,
7 patients had MLH1 or MSH2
mutations and 6 of the 7 had family
histories suggestive of HNPCC. The
relative risk of colorectal cancer in
first-degree relatives of patients who
carried germline mutations in MLH1
or MSH2 was 8.1 (95% CI = 3.5-
15.9) and the relative risk of endometrial
cancer was 23.8 (95% CI =
6.4-61.0). First-degree relatives of
patients with double primary malignancies
without MLH1 or MSH2 defects
were also at increased risk for
colorectal cancer or endometrial cancer,
with a relative risk of 2.8 (95%
CI = 1.7-4.5) and 5.4 (95% CI = 2.0-
11.7), respectively.[41] Another study
of women diagnosed with both colon
and endometrial cancer (N = 80) revealed
that the relative risk of colorectal
cancer before age 55 in
first-degree relatives of probands who
had both cancers before age 55 was
30.5 (95% CI = 18.8-46.6).[43]
In addition to clinical factors (early-
onset disease and double primary
malignancies), loss of mismatch repair
in endometrial tumors can be
helpful in identifying women with
genetic susceptibility. A molecular
phenotype (MSI-positive, MLH1-unmethylated)
has been identified that
appears to highlight carriers of germline
mismatch repair mutations. Women
with MSI-positive endometrial
cancer without MLH1 methylation
demonstrate familial clustering of
malignancies, develop cancer almost
10 years earlier,[42] and have an excess
of HNPCC-associated metachronous
malignancies.[44]
Clinical Significance of
Mismatch Repair DeficiencyIdentification of HNPCC patients is important because family members have been shown to benefit significantly from enrollment in colorectal cancer surveillance programs.[45] Whether the loss of mismatch repair in HNPCC-related or sporadic endometrial cancers is related to tumor behavior or overall survival, however, is controversial. In HNPCC-related endometrial cancers, no difference has been seen in 5-year cumulative survival (all stages) or in histologic subtype compared to age- and stage-matched sporadic endometrial cancers.[46] In a small study (109 tumor samples) that compared MSI-positive (N = 10 tumors with high-level MSI) to MSI-negative sporadic endometrial cancers, MSI positivity was associated with higher tumor grade and poor clinical outcome.[47] A larger retrospective study of sporadic MSI-positive and MSI-negative endometrial cancers, however, found no difference in 5-year survival, 5-year recurrencefree survival, stage, grade, or histologic subtype.[48] Another retrospective case/control study of 29 MSI-positive endometrial cancer patients demonstrated statistically significant improvement in 5- year survival (77% vs 48%) in a cohort of patients weighted heavily towards advanced-stage disease (> 50% of the patients had International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] stage III or IV disease).[49] This benefit was seen in univariate and multivariate analysis. An analysis of 70 MSI-positive vs 159 MSI-negative endometrial cancers (81% completely surgically staged) found that MSIpositive tumors tend to present with early-stage disease and have a less aggressive histology.[50] There were also no differences seen in recurrence or survival, but the median follow-up for both groups was only 24 months.
Overall, it is important to recognize
patients who may have inherited
susceptibility to endometrial cancer,
as family members will benefit from
colorectal surveillance and may similarly
benefit from gynecologic surveillance.
The relationship between
MSI and endometrial cancer biology
and overall survival in HNPCC-related
or sporadic endometrial cancer is
not yet fully understood. A larger analysis
including prospectively acquired
clinical data in surgically staged patients
with known molecular phenotypes
would be helpful to better
understand differences in clinical outcomes
in these patients.
