Carrie Snyder

Review of the Lynch syndrome: history, molecular genetics, screening, differential diagnosis, and medicolegal ramifications

More than one million patients will manifest colorectal cancer (CRC) this year of which, conservatively, approximately 3% (∼30,700 cases) will have Lynch syndrome (LS), the most common hereditary CRC predisposing syndrome. Each case belongs to a family with clinical needs that require genetic counseling, DNA testing for mismatch repair genes (most frequently MLH1 or MSH2) and screening for CRC. Colonoscopy is mandated, given CRCs proximal occurrence (70–80% proximal to the splenic flexure). Due to its early age of onset (average 45 years of age), colonoscopy needs to start by age 25, and because of its accelerated carcinogenesis, it should be repeated every 1 to 2 years through age 40 and then annually thereafter. Should CRC occur, subtotal colectomy may be necessary, given the marked frequency of synchronous and metachronous CRC. Because 40–60% of female patients will manifest endometrial cancer, tailored management is essential. Additional extracolonic cancers include ovary, stomach, small bowel, pancreas, hepatobiliary tract, upper uroepithelial tract, brain (Turcot variant) and sebaceous adenomas/carcinomas (Muir‐Torre variant). LS explains only 10–25% of familial CRC.

Milestones of Lynch syndrome: 1895-2015

Lynch syndrome, which is now recognized as the most common hereditary colorectal cancer condition, is characterized by the predisposition to a spectrum of cancers, primarily colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer. We chronicle over a century of discoveries that revolutionized the diagnosis and clinical management of Lynch syndrome, beginning in 1895 with Warthins observations of familial cancer clusters, through the clinical era led by Lynch and the genetic era heralded by the discovery of causative mutations in mismatch repair (MMR) genes, to ongoing challenges.

Contralateral mastectomy and survival after breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations: retrospective analysis

Objective To compare the survival rates of women with BRCA associated breast cancer who did and did not undergo mastectomy of the contralateral breast. Design Retrospective analysis. Setting 12 cancer genetics clinics. Participants 390 women with a family history of stage I or II breast cancer who were carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations and initially treated with unilateral or bilateral mastectomy. 181 patients had mastectomy of the contralateral breast. Patients were followed for up to 20 years from diagnosis. Main outcome measure Death from breast cancer. Results 79 women died of breast cancer in the follow-up period (18 in the bilateral mastectomy group and 61 in the unilateral mastectomy group). The median follow-up time was 14.3 years (range 0.1-20.0 years). At 20 years the survival rate for women who had mastectomy of the contralateral breast was 88% (95% confidence interval 83% to 93%) and for those who did not was 66% (59% to 73%). In a multivariable analysis, controlling for age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, treatment, and other prognostic features, contralateral mastectomy was associated with a 48% reduction in death from breast cancer (hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.93; P=0.03). In a propensity score adjusted analysis of 79 matched pairs, the association was not significant (0.60, 0.34 to 1.06; P=0.08). Based on these results, we predict that of 100 women treated with contralateral mastectomy, 87 will be alive at 20 years compared with 66 of 100 women treated with unilateral mastectomy. Conclusions This study suggests that women who are positive for BRCA mutations and who are treated for stage I or II breast cancer with bilateral mastectomy are less likely to die from breast cancer than women who are treated with unilateral mastectomy. Given the small number of events in this cohort, further research is required to confirm these findings.

Hereditary ovarian carcinoma: heterogeneity, molecular genetics, pathology, and management.

Hereditary ovarian cancer accounts for at least 5% of the estimated 22,000 new cases of this disease during 2009. During this same time, over 15,000 will die from malignancy ascribed to ovarian origin. The bulk of these hereditary cases fits the hereditary breast–ovarian cancer syndrome, while virtually all of the remainder will be consonant with the Lynch syndrome, disorders which are autosomal dominantly inherited. Advances in molecular genetics have led to the identification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations which predispose to the hereditary breast–ovarian cancer syndrome, and mutations in mismatch repair genes, the most common of which are MSH2 and MLH1, which predispose to Lynch syndrome. These discoveries enable relatively certain diagnosis, limited only by their variable penetrance, so that identification of mutation carriers through a comprehensive cancer family history might be possible. This paper reviews the subject of hereditary ovarian cancer, with particular attention to its molecular genetic basis, its pathology, and its phenotypic/genotypic heterogeneity.

Evaluation of the Needs of Male Carriers of Mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 Who Have Undergone Genetic Counseling

To date, the concerns of men at risk of inheriting a BRCA1 mutation or a BRCA2 mutation have received little attention. It had been anticipated that few men would be interested in predictive testing when a BRCA mutation was identified in their family. However, these men are often affected emotionally by diagnoses of breast cancer in their relatives and may themselves harbor fears that cancer will develop. Male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations are at increased risk of development of cancers of several types, including those of the breast and prostate. We conducted an evaluation of the needs and experiences of 59 male carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations followed at either the University of Toronto or Creighton University. We assessed their motivations for seeking genetic counseling and testing, involvement in family discussions of breast and ovarian cancer, risk perception, changes in cancer-screening practices, and overall satisfaction with the genetic-counseling process. The principal motivation for seeking genetic counseling was concern for their daughters. The majority (88%) of men participated in family conversations about breast and ovarian cancer, and 47% participated in conversations about prophylactic surgery. Most men believed that they were at increased risk of development of cancer (prostate, breast, colorectal, and skin cancers). However, fewer than one-half (43%) of the men with no previous diagnosis of cancer stated that their prostate cancer-surveillance practices had changed after they had received genetic test results. More than one-half (55%) had intrusive thoughts about their cancer risk. Although levels of satisfaction were high, practitioners should be aware of (a) potential pressures influencing men to request predictive testing, (b) the difficulties that men encounter in establishing surveillance regimens for breast and prostate cancer, and (c) the general lack of information about mens particular experiences in the medical community.

The use of preventive measures among healthy women who carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess women’s knowledge about tamoxifen, to examine the frequency of tamoxifen usage and other preventive measures in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, and to document women’s concerns about taking tamoxifen for chemoprevention.Methods: One hundred and twenty five women with known BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and with no prior diagnosis of breast or ovarian cancer were identified through the records of two large cancer genetics clinics. These women had been counseled about their cancer risk and various preventive options were discussed. At a time from two to 110 months following disclosure session, a questionnaire was sent by mail. Women were asked about their current and past use of tamoxifen, their knowledge of risks and benefits, their desire for additional information, and their experience with other preventive measures.Results: Eighty-one of 125 eligible women returned the questionnaire (64.8%). Ten women (12.3%) had used tamoxifen and eight women had used raloxifene (9.9%). Twenty-two women (27.2%) had undergone prophylactic mastectomy and 54 women (66.7%) had had an oophorectomy. Twelve women (14.8%) did not recall discussing tamoxifen. Thirty-five women (58.3%) said that their doctors had not provided them with sufficient information about tamoxifen to consider its use. Fear of side-effects was the most common reason for not taking tamoxifen.Conclusion: Although tamoxifen appears to be effective in preventing breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, few women now take the drug compared to those who choose other preventive measures including surgery. Health care providers should provide accurate information about the risks and benefits of tamoxifen to allow women to make informed decisions.

An Update on DNA-Based BRCA1/BRCA2 Genetic Counseling in Hereditary Breast Cancer

The identification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations has enabled physicians to identify persons at high risk for carcinoma of the breast and ovary in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer (HBOC) families. Many physicians have limited knowledge about the effective translation of these new discoveries into clinical practice settings. This problem is further confounded by the limited number of genetic counselors who have experience with cancer genetics. Genetic counseling about DNA test results was provided to 420 patients from 37 HBC/HBOC families. Descriptive data were collected and recorded about their responses to questions posed immediately before and after test results were disclosed. Findings disclosed a significant tendency of patients to overestimate rather than underestimate their risk (P < .001) prior to receiving results. The chief reason for declining to receive results was fear of insurance discrimination. The primary reason that patients sought test results was for their children. Most women reported that, if testing identified them as mutation carriers, they would consider lifetime surveillance and prophylactic surgery. Responses to DNA test results were varied and often unpredictable. Counseling by an appropriately educated and skilled professional is essential to assist people in making decisions regarding testing and health management.

Hereditary Breast Cancer: Part I. Diagnosing Hereditary Breast Cancer Syndromes

Abstract:  Hereditary breast cancer (HBC) accounts for as much as 10% of the total BC burden. Most of these cases will be found to be due to a BRCA germline mutation. An estimated additional 15–20% of those affected with BC will have one or more first‐ and/or second‐degree relatives with BC. Therefore, when these numbers are combined, familial BC risk accounts for approximately 20–25% of the total BC burden. However, because of the often limited information on family history in the etiologic assessment of BC, this may be an underestimate. Confounding factors include its phenotypic and genotypic heterogeneity, given the association of HBC with a plethora of differing cancer syndromes. Its most common occurrence is its association with ovarian cancer in the so‐called hereditary breast‐ovarian cancer syndrome due to BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. More rarely, it occurs in the Li‐Fraumeni syndrome, caused by a p53 germline mutation, in which markedly early‐onset BC is found in association with brain tumors, sarcomas, leukemia, lymphoma, malignant melanoma, and adrenal cortical carcinoma. Importantly, the age‐adjusted incidence of BC in women in the United States fell sharply, by 6.7%, in 2003, when compared with the rate identified in 2002. We postulate that increasing knowledge about the genetics of BC may have partially contributed to the identification of high‐risk patients who thereby may have benefited significantly from early diagnosis.

Brain tumors in individuals with familial adenomatous polyposis: a cancer registry experience and pooled case report analysis.

Most individuals with Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP) harbor mutations in the APC gene on chromosome 5q21. They are at an increased risk of brain tumors, including cerebellar medulloblastoma, when compared with the general population (Brain Tumor Polyposis—BTP Type 2). Genotype‐phenotype correlations between APC gene mutations and central nervous system (CNS) tumors have, thus far not been successful. Herein the authors have pooled their registry experience in BTP type 2 with the published reports.

The CYP1A2 Genotype Modifies the Association Between Coffee Consumption and Breast Cancer Risk Among BRCA1 Mutation Carriers

We have recently reported that, among BRCA1 mutation carriers, the consumption of caffeinated coffee was associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer risk. Because the metabolism of caffeine is primarily by CYP1A2, we examined whether or not the CYP1A2 genotype modifies the association between a history of coffee consumption and the risk of breast cancer. A common A to C polymorphism in the CYP1A2 gene is associated with decreased enzyme inducibility and impaired caffeine metabolism. Information regarding coffee consumption habits and the CYP1A2 genotype was available for 411 BRCA1 mutation carriers (170 cases and 241 controls). We estimated the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for breast cancer associated with the CYP1A2 genotype and a history of coffee consumption before age 35, adjusting for potential confounders. The CYP1A2 genotype did not affect breast cancer risk. Among women with at least one variant C allele (AC or CC), those who consumed coffee had a 64% reduction in breast cancer risk, compared with women who never consumed coffee (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.73). A significant protective effect of coffee consumption was not observed among women with the CYP1A2 AA genotype (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.49-1.77). Similar results were obtained when the analysis was restricted to caffeinated coffee. This study suggests that caffeine protects against breast cancer in women with a BRCA1 mutation and illustrates the importance of integrating individual genetic variability when assessing diet-disease associations. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(5):912–6)