Pål Møller

Guidelines for the clinical management of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)

Background: Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a well-described inherited syndrome, which is responsible for <1% of all colorectal cancer (CRC) cases. The syndrome is characterised by the development of hundreds to thousands of adenomas in the colorectum. Almost all patients will develop CRC if they are not identified and treated at an early stage. The syndrome is inherited as an autosomal dominant trait and caused by mutations in the APC gene. Recently, a second gene has been identified that also gives rise to colonic adenomatous polyposis, although the phenotype is less severe than typical FAP. The gene is the MUTYH gene and the inheritance is autosomal recessive. In April 2006 and February 2007, a workshop was organised in Mallorca by European experts on hereditary gastrointestinal cancer aiming to establish guidelines for the clinical management of FAP and to initiate collaborative studies. Thirty-one experts from nine European countries participated in these workshops. Prior to the meeting, various participants examined the most important management issues according to the latest publications. A systematic literature search using Pubmed and reference lists of retrieved articles, and manual searches of relevant articles, was performed. During the workshop, all recommendations were discussed in detail. Because most of the studies that form the basis for the recommendations were descriptive and/or retrospective in nature, many of them were based on expert opinion. The guidelines described herein may be helpful in the appropriate management of FAP families. In order to improve the care of these families further, prospective controlled studies should be undertaken.

Familial endometrial cancer in female carriers of MSH6 germline mutations.

Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is a common autosomal dominant condition characterized by early onset colorectal cancer as well as other tumour types at different anatomical sites1. HNPCC tumours often display a high level of genomic instability, characterized by changes in repeat numbers of simple repetitive sequences (microsatellite instability, MSI), which reflects the malfunction of the DNA mismatch repair machinery2, 3. Accordingly, HNPCC was shown to be caused by germline mutations in the DNA mismatch repair genes (MMR) MSH2, MLH1, PMS1, PMS2 and MSH6 (refs 3, 4, 5, 6). So far, more than 220 predisposing mutations have been identified, most in MSH2 and MLH1 and in families complying with the clinical Amsterdam criteria3, 7, 8 (AMS+). Many HNPCC families, however, do not fully comply with these criteria, and in most cases the causative mutations are unknown.

Guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (hereditary non-polyposis cancer)

Lynch syndrome (hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer) is characterised by the development of colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer and various other cancers, and is caused by a mutation in one of the mismatch repair genes: MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2. The discovery of these genes, 15 years ago, has led to the identification of large numbers of affected families. In April 2006, a workshop was organised by a group of European experts in hereditary gastrointestinal cancer (the Mallorca-group), aiming to establish guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome. 21 experts from nine European countries participated in this workshop. Prior to the meeting, various participants prepared the key management issues of debate according to the latest publications. A systematic literature search using Pubmed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews reference lists of retrieved articles and manual searches of relevant articles was performed. During the workshop, all recommendations were discussed in detail. Because most of the studies that form the basis for the recommendations were descriptive and/or retrospective in nature, many of them were based on expert opinion. The guidelines described in this manuscript may be helpful for the appropriate management of families with Lynch syndrome. Prospective controlled studies should be undertaken to improve further the care of these families.

Clinical findings with implications for genetic testing in families with clustering of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND Germ-line mutations in DNA mismatch-repair genes (MSH2, MLH1, PMS1, PMS2, and MSH6) cause susceptibility to hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. We assessed the prevalence of MSH2 and MLH1 mutations in families suspected of having hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer and evaluated whether clinical findings can predict the outcome of genetic testing. METHODS We used denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis to identify MSH2 and MLH1 mutations in 184 kindreds with familial clustering of colorectal cancer or other cancers associated with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Information on the site of cancer, the age at diagnosis, and the number of affected family members was obtained from all families. RESULTS Mutations of MSH2 or MLH1 were found in 47 of the 184 kindreds (26 percent). Clinical factors associated with these mutations were early age at diagnosis of colorectal cancer, the occurrence in the kindred of endometrial cancer or tumors of the small intestine, a higher number of family members with colorectal or endometrial cancer, the presence of multiple colorectal cancers or both colorectal and endometrial cancers in a single family member, and fulfillment of the Amsterdam criteria for the diagnosis of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (at least three family members in two or more successive generations must have colorectal cancer, one of whom is a first-degree relative of the other two; cancer must be diagnosed before the age of 50 in at least one family member; and familial adenomatous polyposis must be ruled out). Multivariate analysis showed that a younger age at diagnosis of colorectal cancer, fulfillment of the Amsterdam criteria, and the presence of endometrial cancer in the kindred were independent predictors of germ-line mutations of MSH2 or MLH1. These results were used to devise a logistic model for estimating the likelihood of a mutation in MSH2 and MLH1. CONCLUSIONS Assessment of clinical findings can improve the rate of detection of mutations of DNA mismatch-repair genes in families suspected of having hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer.

Breast Cancer Risk Following Bilateral Oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: An International Case-Control Study

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to estimate the extent of protection offered against breast cancer by prophylactic oophorectomy in carriers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and to determine to what extent risk reduction varies with age at oophorectomy, age at diagnosis, and time elapsed since surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS We analyzed 1,439 patients with breast cancer and 1,866 matched controls derived from a registry of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) of breast cancer for having had a bilateral oophorectomy, using conditional logistic regression, matched for parity and for oral contraceptive use. RESULTS A previous history of oophorectomy was associated with a significant reduction in breast cancer risk of 56% for BRCA1 carriers (OR = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.66) and of 46% for BRCA2 carriers (OR = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.15). The risk reduction was greater if the oophorectomy was performed before age 40 (OR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.64 for BRCA1 carriers) than after age 40 (OR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.91). The protective effect was evident for 15 years post-oophorectomy (OR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.57). CONCLUSION Oophorectomy is an effective means of reducing the risk of breast cancer in carriers of BRCA1 mutations. The data suggest oophorectomy is protective in BRCA2 carriers as well, but needs to be confirmed in other studies.

Revised guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (HNPCC): recommendations by a group of European experts

Lynch syndrome (LS) is characterised by the development of colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer and various other cancers, and is caused by a mutation in one of the mismatch repair genes: MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2. In 2007, a group of European experts (the Mallorca group) published guidelines for the clinical management of LS. Since then substantial new information has become available necessitating an update of the guidelines. In 2011 and 2012 workshops were organised in Palma de Mallorca. A total of 35 specialists from 13 countries participated in the meetings. The first step was to formulate important clinical questions. Then a systematic literature search was performed using the Pubmed database and manual searches of relevant articles. During the workshops the outcome of the literature search was discussed in detail. The guidelines described in this paper may be helpful for the appropriate management of families with LS. Prospective controlled studies should be undertaken to improve further the care of these families.

MSH2 Mutation Carriers Are at Higher Risk of Cancer Than MLH1 Mutation Carriers: A Study of Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer Families

PURPOSE Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is an autosomal dominant disease characterized by the clustering of colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer, and various other cancers. The disease is caused by mutations in DNA-mismatch-repair (MMR) genes, most frequently in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6. The aims of the present study were to compare the risk of developing colorectal, endometrial, and other cancers between families with the various MMR-gene mutations. PATIENTS AND METHODS Clinical and pathologic data were collected from 138 families with HNPCC. Mutation analyses were performed for all families. Survival analysis was used to calculate the cumulative risk of developing cancer in the various subsets of relatives. RESULTS Mutations were identified in 79 families: 34 in MLH1, 40 in MSH2, and five in MSH6. The lifetime risk of developing cancer at any site was significantly higher for MSH2 mutation carriers than for MLH1 mutation carriers (P < .01). The risk of developing colorectal or endometrial cancer was higher in MSH2 mutation carriers than in MLH1 mutation carriers, but the difference was not significant (P = .13 and P = .057, respectively). MSH2 mutation carriers were found to have a significantly higher risk of developing cancer of the urinary tract (P < .05). The risk of developing cancer of the ovaries, stomach, and brain was also higher in the MSH2 mutation carriers than in the MLH1 mutation carriers, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION Pending large prospective studies, the extension of the current surveillance program in MSH2 mutation carriers with the inclusion of the urinary tract should be considered.

Peutz–Jeghers syndrome: a systematic review and recommendations for management

Peutz–Jeghers syndrome (PJS, MIM175200) is an autosomal dominant condition defined by the development of characteristic polyps throughout the gastrointestinal tract and mucocutaneous pigmentation. The majority of patients that meet the clinical diagnostic criteria have a causative mutation in the STK11 gene, which is located at 19p13.3. The cancer risks in this condition are substantial, particularly for breast and gastrointestinal cancer, although ascertainment and publication bias may have led to overestimates in some publications. Current surveillance protocols are controversial and not evidence-based, due to the relative rarity of the condition. Initially, endoscopies are more likely to be done to detect polyps that may be a risk for future intussusception or obstruction rather than cancers, but surveillance for the various cancers for which these patients are susceptible is an important part of their later management. This review assesses the current literature on the clinical features and management of the condition, genotype–phenotype studies, and suggested guidelines for surveillance and management of individuals with PJS. The proposed guidelines contained in this article have been produced as a consensus statement on behalf of a group of European experts who met in Mallorca in 2007 and who have produced guidelines on the clinical management of Lynch syndrome and familial adenomatous polyposis.

Impact of Oophorectomy on Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Women With a BRCA1 or BRCA2 Mutation

PURPOSE The purposes of this study were to estimate the reduction in risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation after oophorectomy, by age of oophorectomy; to estimate the impact of prophylactic oophorectomy on all-cause mortality; and to estimate 5-year survival associated with clinically detected ovarian, occult, and peritoneal cancers diagnosed in the cohort. PATIENTS AND METHODS Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation were identified from an international registry; 5,783 women completed a baseline questionnaire and ≥ one follow-up questionnaires. Women were observed until either diagnosis of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer, death, or date of most recent follow-up. Hazard ratios (HRs) for cancer incidence and all-cause mortality associated with oophorectomy were evaluated using time-dependent survival analyses. RESULTS After an average follow-up period of 5.6 years, 186 women developed either ovarian (n = 132), fallopian (n = 22), or peritoneal (n = 32) cancer, of whom 68 have died. HR for ovarian, fallopian, or peritoneal cancer associated with bilateral oophorectomy was 0.20 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.30; P < .001). Among women who had no history of cancer at baseline, HR for all-cause mortality to age 70 years associated with an oophorectomy was 0.23 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.39; P < .001). CONCLUSION Preventive oophorectomy was associated with an 80% reduction in the risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer in BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers and a 77% reduction in all-cause mortality.

International variation in rates of uptake of preventive options in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers

Several options for cancer prevention are available for women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, including prophylactic surgery, chemoprevention and screening. The authors report on preventive practices in women with mutations from 9 countries and examine differences in uptake according to country. Women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation were contacted after receiving their genetic test result and were questioned regarding their preventive practices. Information was recorded on prophylactic mastectomy, prophylactic oophorectomy, use of tamoxifen and screening (MRI and mammography). Two thousand six hundred seventy‐seven women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation from 9 countries were included. The follow‐up questionnaire was completed a mean of 3.9 years (range 1.5–10.3 years) after genetic testing. One thousand five hundred thirty‐one women (57.2%) had a bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy. Of the 1,383 women without breast cancer, 248 (18.0%) had had a prophylactic bilateral mastectomy. Among those who did not have a prophylactic mastectomy, only 76 women (5.5%) took tamoxifen and 40 women (2.9%) took raloxifene for breast cancer prevention. Approximately one‐half of the women at risk for breast cancer had taken no preventive option, relying solely on screening. There were large differences in the uptake of the different preventive options by country of residence. Prophylactic oophorectomy is now generally accepted by women and their physicians as a cancer preventive measure. However, only the minority of women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation opt for prophylactic mastectomy or take tamoxifen for the prevention of hereditary breast cancer. Approximately one‐half of women at risk for breast cancer rely on screening alone.