High-risk genetic mutations that predispose individuals to various gastrointestinal (GI) cancers account for only about 5% of the population burden of these diseases. However, because early identification of at-risk individuals can so dramatically affect primary disease prevention, it is imperative that families who harbor susceptibility to these cancers be identified. The benefits of determining an underlying genetic susceptibility are important both for an individual patient’s ongoing management and for his or her family, where early identification of at-risk persons, along with the adoption of frequent cancer screenings and/or prophylactic risk-reduction surgeries, can have dramatic lifeprolonging benefits. In this article, we use a case-based approach to focus on the hereditary aspects of the most common GI cancers, including pancreatic, gastric, and colon cancer.
Be suspicious: knowing when to refer a patient for genetic testing
Indicators that identify individuals who may harbor germline mutations predisposing them to cancer include a family history of multiple cancers that reflect a pattern of disease, young age at onset, multiple primary tumors, tumors with particular histologic phenotypes, the presence of precursor lesions, and other related manifestations that cosegregate with cancer in the family. For individuals identified as being at risk for a cancer predisposition syndrome, referral to a genetic counselor for genetic risk assessment and testing is necessary and helps to ensure a comprehensive genetic evaluation. The investigation of a family for an underlying genetic cancer predisposition is guided by specific questions, including the type and age of cancer diagnoses in the family; whether there is access to pathology reports confirming the site of cancer and indicating histologic subtype; and in the scenario where the patient is unaffected, whether there is access to blood, tissue, or stored DNA from an affected family member on which genetic testing can be performed.
Typically, genetic testing should begin with the individual in the family most likely to be affected with the cancer predisposition syndrome, ie, with the family member who has the most severe disease, earliest onset, or rarest phenotype. Testing this individual decreases the likelihood of testing a family member with a phenocopy (eg, colon cancer that occurred sporadically) and is typically the most informative approach.
Which cancers have a hereditary component?
Familial clustering, evident in many cancer types, can in part be attributed to shared environmental exposures as well as to genetic susceptibility conferred by low-, medium-, or high-risk inherited factors. The heritable component of disease can be measured through studies comparing rates of disease in monozygotic vs dizygotic twins. In the case of cancer, an increased heritability has been shown for a variety of cancers, including prostate, colorectal, and breast cancers. Further evidence for increased heritability can be ascertained from epidemiologic studies using cancer data from homogenous populations that show greater than expected observed rates of certain types of cancer within families. In the case of families with multiple affected individuals in subsequent generations, there is heightened suspicion for rare mutations in genes that confer a high risk of cancer. In families where the pattern is not as striking, the cancer predisposition may still be genetic in origin but could be due to lower-penetrance risk variants. Genome-wide association studies have uncovered common risk variants in the genome that confer susceptibility to certain types of cancer; however, independently, each of these low-risk variants only marginally increases a person’s risk of cancer above that of the general population. Multiplicative models of common risk variants could potentially explain a proportion of familial clustering or be used to modify risk within moderate- to high-risk pedigrees, but as of yet, the clinical utility of redefining risk based on common variation has not been demonstrated.
To date, a large portion of the genetic etiology of hereditary cancer predisposition remains unexplained; even many seemingly high-risk families will not have an identifiable mutation in known cancer predisposition genes. However, with current technological advances in sequencing, rather than testing an individual for a specific gene or genes, clinical genetic testing may eventually evolve to incorporate whole-exome or whole-genome testing, in which all genes are assessed and the culprit genetic changes are identified after testing. Theoretically, this could reveal high-, medium-, and low-risk factors that might contribute to a familial cancer in an individual. In addition, factors such as genetic background and epigenetics (changes not encoded in the genome, resulting instead from environmental exposures that influence gene expression) may also further influence disease penetrance and affect an individual’s cancer risk.
To illustrate the benefits of genetic testing in individuals with a hereditary predisposition to GI cancers, we have provided four scenarios that are typical of what is encountered in the clinic. For each case, the general considerations outlined in Table 1 should be taken into account during the genetic risk assessment process.
Familial Pancreatic Cancer
Case: Mr. X is a 58-year-old man with a recent diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic cancer. On review of family history, you find a history of pancreatic, breast, and prostate cancers on the maternal side of the family (Figure 1). There is no personal or family history of melanoma, and on examination of his skin you do not find perioral freckling, melanomatous lesions, or evidence of old skin surgeries.
Based on the recently updated National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, hereditary breast ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome should be considered in individuals with pancreatic adenocarcinoma diagnosed at any age who have two or more close relatives with breast and/or ovarian and/or pancreatic cancer diagnosed at any age. Thus, after a discussion with the patient regarding the potential usefulness to him and his family members of identifying an inherited mutation, you refer the patient to clinical genetics for further discussion of genetic testing.
Genetic evaluation: A total of 43,920 new diagnoses of pancreatic cancer in US men and women is projected for 2012. A quarter of these will prove to be secondary to environmental factors such as smoking; however, roughly 4,392 individuals (10%) will prove to have familial clustering of the disease, with 2% having disease resulting from a mutation in a high-risk Mendelian susceptibility gene (Figure 2).
In view of Mr. X’s family history of pancreatic, breast, and prostate cancers, HBOC syndrome is considered. The BRCA2 cancer susceptibility gene has been shown to be associated with sporadic and familial pancreatic cancer,[6,7] with the Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium study and other studies observing a 3.5- to 7-fold increased risk of pancreatic cancer in families carrying a BRCA2 mutation.[8,9] In patients with familial pancreatic cancer, a BRCA2 mutation is identified in 11% to 17% of families.[7,10] The association between BRCA1 mutations and pancreatic cancer is not as well defined, but the relative risk of pancreatic cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers has been estimated to be two-fold higher than in the general population.
It is notable that mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes, while rare in the general population, are more prevalent in certain ethnic groups, such as Ashkenazi Jews. Since Mr. X is of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, testing begins with evaluation for the three Ashkenazi founder mutations, which account for ~90% to 95% of BRCA mutations in the Ashkenazim. Genetic testing reveals the presence of the BRCA2 6174delT germline mutation, the most common Ashkenazi founder mutation. In patients of Ashkenazi ancestry (unselected for family history) with resected pancreatic cancer, 5.5% were found to harbor a BRCA founder mutation, and in Ashkenazi breast-pancreas families, 14.2% were BRCA mutation–positive, with nearly equal distribution of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, suggesting that both of these genes may be involved with pancreatic cancer risk.[13,14]
During the genetic assessment of patients with pancreatic cancer, a number of other hereditary pancreatic cancer predispositions may also be considered (Figure 2). Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, which has a relative risk of 132 for pancreatic cancer, is usually associated with a history of intestinal polyposis and often presents with intussusception, gastrointestinal bleeding, and/or perioral freckling. Familial adenomatous polyposis, which has a relative risk of 4.5 for pancreatic cancer, is associated with a history of colorectal polyps or colorectal cancer; extraintestinal features such as congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium; or extracolonic tumors, such as pediatric hepatoblastomas, sebaceous adenomas, osteomas, desmoids, or medulloblastomas. Lynch syndrome has a ~9-fold increase in risk for pancreatic cancer above that of the general population; a history of colorectal, endometrial, and other cancers can also usually be found. Familial atypical multiple mole melanoma (FAMMM) syndrome, associated with germline mutations in CDKN2A, has a relative risk of 13 to 22 for pancreatic cancer, and is generally associated with a history of melanomas or dysplastic nevi. In addition, PALB2 mutations, thought to be associated with both breast and pancreatic cancer susceptibility, may also be considered.[20-22] Furthermore, other very rare conditions can be associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer, including hereditary pancreatitis, which has a relative risk of 53 to 87 for pancreatic cancer (Table).[23-25]
In terms of oncologic treatment, identification of a BRCA mutation in a patient with pancreatic cancer is becoming increasingly important, since new therapies, such as poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, have shown significant activity in patients with advanced BRCA-associated breast and ovarian cancers and hold potential for the treatment of BRCA-associated pancreatic cancer as well. In fact, clinical trials exploring the efficacy of PARP inhibitors in BRCA-associated pancreatic cancer are currently underway.
With the knowledge that a BRCA mutation has been identified in this patient, cascade testing of family members can be performed so that at-risk family members can undertake the recommended cancer screening and prevention strategies outlined in Table 2. Although pancreatic cancer screening studies to date have not demonstrated a decrease in pancreatic cancer mortality, participation in clinical trials assessing the efficacy of pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals may be a consideration for some BRCA-positive families with a history of pancreatic cancer.
1. Lichtenstein P, Holm NV, Verkasalo PK, et al. Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer—analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:78-85.
2. Goldgar DE, Easton DF, Cannon-Albright LA, Skolnick MH. Systematic population-based assessment of cancer risk in first-degree relatives of cancer probands. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994;86:1600-8.
3. Stadler ZK, Thom P, Robson ME, et al. Genome-wide association studies of cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28:4255-4267.
4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN V.1.2011. Available online from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_screening.pdf . Accessed Jan 24, 2012.
5. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2009. National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. Available from: http://seer.
cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009/. Based on November 2011 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site in 2012.
6. Goggins M, Schutte M, Lu J, et al. Germline BRCA2 gene mutations in patients with apparently sporadic pancreatic carcinomas. Cancer Res. 1996;56:5360-4.
7. Hahn SA, Greenhalf B, Ellis I, et al. BRCA2 germline mutations in familial pancreatic carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:214-21.
8. Cancer risks in BRCA2 mutation carriers. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:1310-6.
9. Risch HA, McLaughlin JR, Cole DE, et al. Population BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation frequencies and cancer penetrances: a kin-cohort study in Ontario, Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1694-1706.
10. Murphy KM, Brune KA, Griffin C, et al. Evaluation of candidate genes MAP2K4, MADH4, ACVR1B, and BRCA2 in familial pancreatic cancer: deleterious BRCA2 mutations in 17%. Cancer Res. 2002;62:3789-93.
11. Thompson D, Easton DF; Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Cancer incidence in BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1358-65.
12. Oddoux C, Struewing JP, Clayton CM, et al. The carrier frequency of the BRCA2 6174delT mutation among Ashkenazi Jewish individuals is approximately 1%. Nat Genet. 1996;14:188-90.
13. Ferrone CR, Levine DA, Tang LH, et al. BRCA germline mutations in Jewish patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:433-8.
14. Stadler ZK, Salo-Mullen E, Patil SM, et al. Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish families with breast and pancreatic cancer. Cancer. 2012;118:493-9.
15. Su GH, Hruban RH, Bansal RK, et al. Germline and somatic mutations of the STK11/LKB1 Peutz-Jeghers gene in pancreatic and biliary cancers. Am J Pathol. 1999;154:1835-40.
16. Giardiello FM, Brensinger JD, Tersmette AC, et al. Very high risk of cancer in familial Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2000;119:1447-53.
17. Giardiello FM, Offerhaus GJ, Lee DH, et al. Increased risk of thyroid and pancreatic carcinoma in familial adenomatous polyposis. Gut. 1993;34:1394-6.
18. Kastrinos F, Mukherjee B, Tayob N, et al. Risk of pancreatic cancer in families with Lynch syndrome. JAMA. 2009;302:1790-5.
19. Lynch HT, Fusaro RM, Lynch JF, Brand R. Pancreatic cancer and the FAMMM syndrome. Fam Cancer. 2008;7:103-12.
20. Jones S, Hruban RH, Kamiyama M, et al. Exomic sequencing identifies PALB2 as a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene. Science. 2009;324:217.
21. Tischkowitz MD, Sabbaghian N, Hamel N, et al. Analysis of the gene coding for the BRCA2-interacting protein PALB2 in familial and sporadic pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:1183-6.
22. Schneider R, Slater EP, Sina M, et al. German national case collection for familial pancreatic cancer (FaPaCa): ten years experience. Fam Cancer. 2011;10:323-30.
23. Lowenfels AB, Maisonneuve P, DiMagno EP, et al. Hereditary pancreatitis and the risk of pancreatic cancer. International Hereditary Pancreatitis Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:442-6.
24. Rebours V, Boutron-Ruault MC, Schnee M, et al. Risk of pancreatic adenocarcinoma in patients with hereditary pancreatitis: a national exhaustive series. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:111-9.
25. Sheldon CD, Hodson ME, Carpenter LM, Swerdlow AJ. A cohort study of cystic fibrosis and malignancy. Br J Cancer. 1993;68:1025-8.
26. Lowery MA, Kelsen DP, Stadler ZK, et al. An emerging entity: pancreatic adenocarcinoma associated with a known BRCA mutation: clinical descriptors, treatment implications, and future directions. Oncologist. 2011;16:1397-1402.
27. Guilford P, Hopkins J, Harraway J, et al. E-cadherin germline mutations in familial gastric cancer. Nature. 1998;392:402-5.
28. Oliveira C, Senz J, Kaurah P, et al. Germline CDH1 deletions in hereditary diffuse gastric cancer families. Hum Mol Genet. 2009;18:1545-55.
29. Fitzgerald RC, Hardwick R, Huntsman D; International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium. Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: updated consensus guidelines for clinical management and directions for future research. J Med Genet. 2010;47:436-44.
30. Barber ME, Save V, Carneiro F, et al. Histopathological and molecular analysis of gastrectomy specimens from hereditary diffuse gastric cancer patients has implications for endoscopic surveillance of individuals at risk. J Pathol. 2008;216:286-94.
31. Kaurah P, Fitzgerald R, Dwerryhouse S, Huntsman DG. Pregnancy after prophylactic total gastrectomy. Fam Cancer. 2010;9:331-4.
32. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN V.2.2011. Available online from:http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colorectal_screening.pdf. Accessed Jan 24, 2012.
33. Jass JR. Role of the pathologist in the diagnosis of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Dis Markers. 2004;20:215-24.
34. Sharma SG, Gulley ML. BRAF mutation testing in colorectal cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:1225-8.
35. Boland CR, Thibodeau SN, Hamilton SR, et al. A National Cancer Institute workshop on microsatellite instability for cancer detection and familial predisposition: development of international criteria for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 1998;58:5248-57.
36. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genet Med. 2009;11:35-41.
37. Parc Y, Boisson C, Thomas G, Olschwang S. Cancer risk in 348 French MSH2 or MLH1 gene carriers. J Med Genet. 2003;40:208-13.
38. Hampel H, Stephens JA, Pukkala E, et al. Cancer risk in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: later age of onset. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:415-21.
39. Stoffel E, Mukherjee B, Raymond VM, et al. Calculation of risk of colorectal and endometrial cancer among patients with Lynch syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:1621-7.
40. Aarnio M, Sankila R, Pukkala E, et al. Cancer risk in mutation carriers of DNA-mismatch-repair genes. Int J Cancer. 1999;81:214-8.
41. Aarnio M, Mecklin JP, Aaltonen LA, et al. Life-time risk of different cancers in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndrome. Int J Cancer. 1995;64:430-3.
42. Parry S, Win AK, Parry B, et al. Metachronous colorectal cancer risk for mismatch repair gene mutation carriers: the advantage of more extensive colon surgery. Gut. 2011;60:950-7.
43. Vasen HF, Abdirahman M, Brohet R, et al. One to 2-year surveillance intervals reduce risk of colorectal cancer in families with Lynch syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:2300-6.
44. Lothe RA, Peltomaki P, Meling GI, et al. Genomic instability in colorectal cancer: relationship to clinicopathological variables and family history. Cancer Res. 1993;53:5849-52.
45. Gryfe R, Kim H, Hsieh ET, et al. Tumor microsatellite instability and clinical outcome in young patients with colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:69-77.
46. Popat S, Hubner R, Houlston RS. Systematic review of microsatellite instability and colorectal cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:609-18.
47. 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. 2003;349:247-57.
48. Sargent DJ, Marsoni S, Monges G, et al. Defective mismatch repair as a predictive marker for lack of efficacy of fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy in colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3219-26.
49. Bisgaard ML, Fenger K, Bulow S, et al. Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP): frequency, penetrance, and mutation rate. Hum Mutat. 1994;3:121-5.
50. Aretz S, Stienen D, Friedrichs N, et al. Somatic APC mosaicism: a frequent cause of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Hum Mutat. 2007;28:985-92.
51. Petersen GM, Slack J, Nakamura Y. Screening guidelines and premorbid diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis using linkage. Gastroenterology. 1991;
52. Bianchi LK, Burke CA, Bennett AE, et al. Fundic gland polyp dysplasia is common in familial adenomatous polyposis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6:180-5.
53. Lynch HT, Snyder C, Davies JM, et al. FAP, gastric cancer, and genetic counseling featuring children and young adults: a family study and review. Fam Cancer. 2010;9:581-8.
54. Garrean S, Hering J, Saied A, et al. Gastric adenocarcinoma arising from fundic gland polyps in a patient with familial adenomatous polyposis syndrome. Am Surg. 2008;74:79-83.
55. Groves CJ, Saunders BP, Spigelman AD, Phillips RK. Duodenal cancer in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP): results of a 10 year prospective study. Gut. 2002;50:636-41.
56. Half E, Bercovich D, Rozen P. Familial adenomatous polyposis. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2009;4:22.
57. Nielsen M, Hes FJ, Nagengast FM, et al. Germline mutations in APC and MUTYH are responsible for the majority of families with attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis. Clin Genet. 2007;71:427-33.
58. Aretz S, Uhlhaas S, Goergens H, et al. MUTYH-associated polyposis: 70 of 71 patients with biallelic mutations present with an attenuated or atypical phenotype. Int J Cancer. 2006;119:807-14.
59. Rio Frio T, Lavoie J, Hamel N, et al. Homozygous BUB1B mutation and susceptibility to gastrointestinal neoplasia. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2628-37.
60. Couch FJ, Johnson MR, Rabe KG, et al. The prevalence of BRCA2 mutations in familial pancreatic cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:342-6.
61. McWilliams RR, Wieben ED, Rabe KG, et al. Prevalence of CDKN2A mutations in pancreatic cancer patients: implications for genetic counseling. Eur J Hum Genet. 2011;19:472-8.
62. Witt H, Luck W, Hennies HC, et al. Mutations in the gene encoding the serine protease inhibitor, Kazal type 1 are associated with chronic pancreatitis. Nat Genet 2000;25:213-6.
63. Rittenhouse DW, Talbott VA, Anklesaria Z, et al. Subject review: pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the setting of mutations in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene: case report and review of the literature. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:2284-90.
64. McWilliams RR, Petersen GM, Rabe KG, et al. Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene mutations and risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer. 2010;116:203-9.
65. Geary J, Sasieni P, Houlston R, et al. Gene-related cancer spectrum in families with hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). Fam Cancer. 2007.
66. Lynch HT, Grady W, Suriano G, Huntsman D. Gastric cancer: new genetic developments. J Surg Oncol. 2005;90:114-33; discussion 133.
67. Risch HA, McLaughlin JR, Cole DE, et al. Prevalence and penetrance of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population series of 649 women with ovarian cancer. Am J Hum Genet. 2001;68:700-10.
68. Giardiello FM, Brensinger JD, Tersmette AC, et al. Very high risk of cancer in familial Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2000;119:1447-53.
69. Jagelman DG, DeCosse JJ, Bussey HJ. Upper gastrointestinal cancer in familial adenomatous polyposis. Lancet. 1988;1:1149-51.
70. Sugano K. Gastric cancer: pathogenesis, screening, and treatment. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2008;18:513-22.
71. Oliveira C, Ferreira P, Nabais S, et al. E-Cadherin (CDH1) and p53 rather than SMAD4 and Caspase-10 germline mutations contribute to genetic predisposition in Portuguese gastric cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2004; 40:1897-1903.
72. Keller G, Vogelsang H, Becker I, et al. Germline mutations of the E-cadherin(CDH1) and TP53 genes, rather than of RUNX3 and HPP1, contribute to genetic predisposition in German gastric cancer patients. J Med Genet. 2004;41:e89.
73. Kim IJ, Park JH, Kang HC, et al. A novel germline mutation in the MET extracellular domain in a Korean patient with the diffuse type of familiar gastric cancer. J Med Genet. 2003;40:e97.
74. Bartsch DK, Sina-Frey M, Lang S, et al. CDKN2A germline mutations in familial pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 2002;236:730-7.
75. Leachman SA, Carucci J, Kohlmann W, et al. Selection criteria for genetic assessment of patients with familial melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;61:677.e1-677.14.
76. Tomlinson IP, Houlston RS. Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. J Med Genet. 1997;34:1007-11.
77. Klein AP. Genetic susceptibility to pancreatic cancer. Mol Carcinog. 2012;51:14-24.
78. Tinat J, Bougeard G, Baert-Desurmont S, et al. 2009 version of the Chompret criteria for Li Fraumeni syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:e108-9; author reply e110.