Cristina Alenda

Mismatch repair status in the prediction of benefit from adjuvant fluorouracil chemotherapy in colorectal cancer

Aim: Some retrospective studies have shown a lack of benefit of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with mismatch repair (MMR) deficient colorectal cancer. Our aim was to assess if this molecular marker can predict benefit from 5-FU adjuvant chemotherapy. A second objective was to determine if MMR status influences short term survival. Methods: We included 754 patients with a median follow up of 728.5 days (range 1–1097). A total of 260 patients with stage II or III tumours received 5-FU adjuvant chemotherapy, according to standard clinical criteria and irrespective of their MMR status. A tumour was considered MMR deficient when either BAT-26 showed instability or there was loss of MLH1 or MSH2 protein expression. Results: At the end of the follow up period, 206 patients died and 120 presented with tumour recurrence. Sixty six (8.8%) patients had MMR deficient tumours. There were no significant differences in overall survival (MMR competent 72.1%; MMR deficient 78.8%; p = 0.3) or disease free survival (MMR competent 61.3%; MMR deficient 72.3%; p = 0.08). In patients with stage II and III tumours, benefit from 5-FU adjuvant chemotherapy was restricted to patients with MMR competent tumours (overall survival: chemotherapy 87.1%; non-chemotherapy 73.5%; log rank, p = 0.00001). Patients with MMR deficient tumours did not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (overall survival: chemotherapy 89.5%; non-chemotherapy 82.4%; log rank, p = 0.4). Conclusions: Benefit from 5-FU adjuvant chemotherapy depends on the MMR status of tumours in patients with colorectal cancer. 5-FU adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with MMR competent tumours but this benefit from chemotherapy cannot be extended to patients with MMR deficient tumours.

5-Fluorouracil Adjuvant Chemotherapy Does Not Increase Survival in Patients With CpG Island Methylator Phenotype Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND & AIMS 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based adjuvant chemotherapy does not increase survival times of patients with colorectal tumors with microsatellite instability. We determined the response of patients with colorectal tumors with the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) to 5-FU-based therapy. METHODS We analyzed a population-based cohort of 302 patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) for a median follow-up time of 50.7 months. CIMP status was determined by analysis of the CACNAG1, SOCS1, RUNX3, NEUROG1, and MLH1 promoters; tumors were considered to be CIMP positive if at least 3 promoters were methylated. RESULTS Tumors from 29.5% of patients (89/302) were CIMP positive; CIMP status did not influence disease-free survival (DFS; log-rank = 0.3). Of tumors of TNM stages II-III (n = 196), 32.7% were CIMP positive. Among patients with stages II-III CRC who did not receive adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy, those with CIMP-positive tumors had longest times of DFS (log-rank = 0.04); In patients who received chemotherapy, those with CIMP-positive tumors had shorter times of DFS (log-rank = 0.02). In patients with CIMP-negative tumors, adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy significantly increased time of DFS (log-rank = 0.00001). However, in patients with CIMP-positive tumors, adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy did not affect time of DFS (log-rank = 0.7). Multivariate analysis showed a significant, independent interaction between 5-FU treatment and CIMP status (hazard ratio [HR], 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-0.8). Among patients with CIMP-positive tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy was not an independent predictor of outcome (HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.0). In patients who did not receive adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy, CIMP status was the only independent predictor of survival (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8). CONCLUSIONS Patients with CIMP-positive colorectal tumors do not benefit from 5-FU-based adjuvant chemotherapy.

The efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil in colorectal cancer depends on the mismatch repair status

AIMS The aim of this study is to evaluate if mismatch repair (MMR) defective colorectal cancer has a different response to adjuvant 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) chemotherapy in a cohort of patients prospectively followed during 5 years. METHODS The cohort included 754 surgically treated patients with colorectal cancer. MMR status was diagnosed by MLH1 and MSH2 immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability analysis. Median follow-up was 49.2 months (range 1-73). At inclusion, 505 patients were diagnosed as TNM II or III stage, analysis of the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy was made on this population. Adjuvant chemotherapy was applied to 248 patients (98.2% 5-FU based). RESULTS MMR deficiency was found in 76 patients (10.1%). No differences were found in overall survival (log-rank p=0.3) or disease-free survival (log-rank p=0.3) regarding MMR status. Adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients in the II or III stage, but this improvement is only evident in patients with MMR-competent tumours (log-rank p=0.00001). Survival of patients with MMR-defective tumours does not improve with adjuvant chemotherapy (log-rank p=0.7). A multivariate analysis showed an independent effect of the interaction between MMR status and adjuvant chemotherapy (Hazard ratio 2.04; 95% confidence interval: 1.42-2.93). CONCLUSION In a cohort of colorectal cancer patients, those with MMR-deficient tumours seem not to benefit from 5-FU-based chemotherapy.

Differential features of colorectal cancers fulfilling Amsterdam criteria without involvement of the mutator pathway.

Purpose: Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is the commonest form of inherited colorectal cancer. Whereas it has been known that mismatch repair gene mutations are the underlying cause of HNPCC, an undetermined number of patients do not have these alterations. The main objectives of this study were to assess the relevance of clinically defined HNPCC patients without characteristic mutator pathway alterations and to identify their specific features. Experimental Design: This was a prospective, population-based, cohort that included 1,309 newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients. Demographic, clinical, pathologic data and tumor DNA from probands as well as a detailed family history were collected. Microsatellite analysis and MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 immunohistochemistry were done. Germ line MLH1 and MSH2 mutational analysis was done in all patients with evidence of MMR alterations. Results: Twenty-five patients (1.9%) fulfilled Amsterdam criteria of HNPCC but 15 (60%) of them did not have microsatellite instability and showed normal expression of MMR proteins. These patients presented mostly left-sided tumors without lymphocytic infiltrate; they were older, had fewer family members affected with colorectal or endometrial cancers, and more often fulfilled Amsterdam II criteria than HNPCC patients with microsatellite instability. Like unstable HNPCC patients, this group without mutator pathway alterations had a significant percentage of synchronous and metachronous adenomatous polyps and cancers. Conclusions: We define an important group of HNPCC families with specific features, no evidence of mismatch repair deficiency, and an autosomal dominant trait with a lesser penetrance than HNPCC with deficiency.

Comparison between universal molecular screening for Lynch syndrome and revised Bethesda guidelines in a large population-based cohort of patients with colorectal cancer

Background The selection of patients for genetic testing to rule out Lynch syndrome is currently based on fulfilment of at least one of the revised Bethesda criteria followed by mismatch repair (MMR) status analysis. A study was undertaken to compare the present approach with universal MMR study-based strategies to detect Lynch syndrome in a large series of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods 2093 patients with CRC from the EPICOLON I and II cohorts were included. Immunohistochemistry for MMR proteins and/or microsatellite instability (MSI) analysis was performed in tumour tissue. Germline MLH1 and MSH2 mutation analysis was performed in patients whose tumours showed loss of MLH1 or MSH2 staining, respectively. MSH6 genetic testing was done in patients whose tumours showed lack of MSH6 expression or a combined lack of MSH2 and MSH6 expression but did not have MSH2 mutations. PMS2 genetic testing was performed in patients showing isolated loss of PMS2 expression. In patients with MSI tumours and normal or not available MMR protein expression, all four MMR genes were studied. Results A total of 180 patients (8.6%) showed loss of expression of some of the MMR proteins and/or MSI. Four hundred and eighty-six patients (23.2%) met some of the revised Bethesda criteria. Of the 14 (0.7%) patients who had a MMR gene mutation, 12 fulfilled at least one of the revised Bethesda criteria and two (14.3%) did not. Conclusions Routine molecular screening of patients with CRC for Lynch syndrome using immunohistochemistry or MSI has better sensitivity for detecting mutation carriers than the Bethesda guidelines.

Risk of Cancer in Cases of Suspected Lynch Syndrome Without Germline Mutation

BACKGROUND & AIMS Colorectal cancers (CRCs) with microsatellite instability (MSI) and a mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemical deficit without hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter are likely to be caused by Lynch syndrome. Some patients with these cancers have not been found to have pathogenic germline mutations and are considered to have Lynch-like syndrome (LLS). The aim of this study was to determine the risk of cancer in families of patients with LLS. METHODS We studied a population-based cohort of 1705 consecutive patients, performing MSI tests and immunohistochemical analyses of MMR proteins. Patients were diagnosed with Lynch syndrome when they were found to have pathogenic germline mutations. Patients with MSI and loss of MSH2 and/or MSH6 expression, isolated loss of PMS2 or loss of MLH1 without MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, and no pathogenic mutation were considered to have LLS. The clinical characteristics of patients and the age- and sex-adjusted standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) of cancer in families were compared between groups. RESULTS The incidence of CRC was significantly lower in families of patients with LLS than in families with confirmed cases of Lynch syndrome (SIR for Lynch syndrome, 6.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.58-9.54; SIR for LLS, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.16-3.56; P < .001). However, the incidence of CRC was higher in families of patients with LLS than in families with sporadic CRC (SIR for sporadic CRC, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.79; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS The risk of cancer in families with LLS is lower that of families with Lynch syndrome but higher than that of families with sporadic CRC. These results confirm the need for special screening and surveillance strategies for these patients and their relatives.

New insights into POLE and POLD1 germline mutations in familial colorectal cancer and polyposis

Germline mutations in DNA polymerase ɛ (POLE) and δ (POLD1) have been recently identified in families with multiple colorectal adenomas and colorectal cancer (CRC). All reported cases carried POLE c.1270C>G (p.Leu424Val) or POLD1 c.1433G>A (p.Ser478Asn) mutations. Due to the scarcity of cases reported so far, an accurate clinical phenotype has not been defined. We aimed to assess the prevalence of these recurrent mutations in unexplained familial and early-onset CRC and polyposis, and to add additional information to define the clinical characteristics of mutated cases. A total of 858 familial/early onset CRC and polyposis patients were studied: 581 familial and early-onset CRC cases without mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency, 86 cases with MMR deficiency and 191 polyposis cases. Mutation screening was performed by KASPar genotyping assays and/or Sanger sequencing of the involved exons. POLE p.L424V was identified in a 28-year-old polyposis and CRC patient, as a de novo mutation. None of the 858 cases studied carried POLD1 p.S478N. A new mutation, POLD1 c.1421T>C (p.Leu474Pro), was identified in a mismatch repair proficient Amsterdam II family. Its pathogenicity was supported by cosegregation in the family, in silico predictions, and previously published yeast assays. POLE and POLD1 mutations explain a fraction of familial CRC and polyposis. Sequencing the proofreading domains of POLE and POLD1 should be considered in routine genetic diagnostics. Until additional evidence is gathered, POLE and POLD1 genetic testing should not be restricted to polyposis cases, and the presence of de novo mutations, considered.

Methylation analysis of MLH1 improves the selection of patients for genetic testing in Lynch Syndrome

Inactivation of MLH1 due to promoter hypermethylation strongly suggests a sporadic origin, providing exclusion criteria for Lynch syndrome. The aim of this study is to compare the utility of methylation analysis of MLH1 and BRAF V600E mutations for the selection of patients with MLH1 negative colorectal cancer for genetic testing. MLH1 methylation status was evaluated by MethyLight and methylation-specific MLPA (MS-MLPA) in tumor DNA from 73 colorectal cancer patients with loss of MLH1 protein expression. These tumors were analyzed for BRAF V600E mutations, and genetic testing for germline MLH1 mutations was performed in all corresponding patients. Ten patients had germline mutations in MLH1 and none of their tumors showed significant MLH1 methylation or BRAF V600E mutation. MLH1 genetic testing excluded patients by MethyLight in 47 patients (64%), by MS-MLPA in 49 (67%), and BRAF V600E mutation in only 25 patients (34%) (chi(2) P = 0.00001). Specificity was 75% for MethyLight, 78% for MS-MLPA and 40% for BRAF V600E mutation. The use of MethyLight or MS-MLPA instead of BRAF mutation resulted in a cost reduction of 41% and 45%, respectively, per every MLH1 mutation detected. Taken together, methylation analysis of MLH1 shows better performance characteristics than BRAF V600E mutation in the selection of patients for genetic testing of MLH1, especially when using MS-MLPA.

Serrated polyposis syndrome: Molecular, pathological and clinical aspects

Hyperplastic polyps have traditionally been considered not to have malignant potential. New pathological classification of serrated polyps and recent discoveries about the serrated pathway of carcinogenesis have revolutionized the concepts and revitalized the research in this area. Until recently, it has been thought that most colorectal cancers arise from conventional adenomas via the traditional tumor suppressor pathway initiated by a mutation of the APC gene, but it has been found that this pathway accounts for only approximately 70%-80% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases. The majority of the remaining colorectal cancer cases follow an alternative pathway leading to CpG island methylator phenotype carcinoma with BRAF mutation and with or without microsatellite instability. The mechanism of carcinomas arising from this alternative pathway seems to begin with an activating mutation of the BRAF oncogene. Serrated polyposis syndrome is a relatively rare condition characterized by multiple and/or large serrated polyps of the colon. Clinical characteristics, etiology and relationship of serrated polyposis syndrome to CRC have not been clarified yet. Patients with this syndrome show a high risk of CRC and both sporadic and hereditary cases have been described. Clinical criteria have been used for diagnosis and frequent colonoscopy surveillance should be performed in order to prevent colorectal cancer. In this review, we try to gather new insights into the molecular pathogenesis of serrated polyps in order to understand their possible clinical implications and to make an approach to the management of this syndrome.

Detection of Metachronous Neoplasms in Colorectal Cancer Patients: Identification of Risk Factors

PurposePatients with colorectal cancer have a high risk of developing metachronous neoplasms. Identification of predictive factors associated with such conditions would allow individualized follow-up strategies in these patients. This study was designed to identify individual and familial factors associated with the development of metachronous colorectal neoplasms in patients with colorectal cancer.MethodsIn the context of a prospective, multicenter, general population-based study—the EPICOLON project—all patients with colorectal cancer attended in ten Spanish hospitals during a one-year period were included. Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis or inflammatory bowel disease were excluded. All patients were monitored by colonoscopy within two years of the diagnoses. Demographic, clinical, pathologic, molecular (microsatellite instability status and immunohistochemistry for MSH2 and MLH1), and familial characteristics (fulfillment of Amsterdam I or II criteria, and revised Bethesda guidelines) were analyzed.ResultsA total of 353 patients were included in the study. At two years of follow-up, colonoscopy revealed the presence of adenomas in 89 (25 percent) patients and colorectal cancer in 14 (3.9 percent) patients, in 7 cases restricted to anastomosis. Univariate analysis demonstrated that development of metachronous neoplasm (adenoma or colorectal cancer) was associated with personal history of previous colorectal cancer (odds ratio, 5.58; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.01–31.01), and presence of previous or synchronous adenomas (odds ratio, 1.77; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.21–3.17). Although nonstatistical significance was achieved, metachronisms were associated with gender (P < 0.09) and differentiation degree (P < 0.08). Multivariate analysis identified previous or synchronous adenomas (odds ratio, 1.98; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.16–3.38) as independent predictive factor. Neither presence of tumor DNA microsatellite instability nor family history correlated with the presence of metachronous neoplasms.ConclusionsPatients with previous or synchronous colorectal adenoma have an increased risk of developing metachronous colorectal neoplasms. Accordingly, this subgroup of patients may benefit from specific surveillance strategies.