Rachel Pearlman

A practice guideline from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors: referral indications for cancer predisposition assessment

Disclaimer: The practice guidelines of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) are developed by members of the ACMG and NSGC to assist medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and other health-care providers in making decisions about appropriate management of genetic concerns, including access to and/or delivery of services. Each practice guideline focuses on a clinical or practice-based issue and is the result of a review and analysis of current professional literature believed to be reliable. As such, information and recommendations within the ACMG and NSGC joint practice guidelines reflect the current scientific and clinical knowledge at the time of publication, are current only as of their publication date, and are subject to change without notice as advances emerge. In addition, variations in practice, which take into account the needs of the individual patient and the resources and limitations unique to the institution or type of practice, may warrant approaches, treatments, and/or procedures that differ from the recommendations outlined in this guideline. Therefore, these recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does the use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. Genetic counseling practice guidelines are never intended to displace a health-care provider’s best medical judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a particular patient or patient population. Practice guidelines are published by the ACMG or the NSGC for educational and informational purposes only, and neither the ACMG nor the NSGC “approve” or “endorse” any specific methods, practices, or sources of information.Cancer genetic consultation is an important aspect of the care of individuals at increased risk of a hereditary cancer syndrome. Yet several patient, clinician, and system-level barriers hinder identification of individuals appropriate for cancer genetics referral. Thus, the purpose of this practice guideline is to present a single set of comprehensive personal and family history criteria to facilitate identification and maximize appropriate referral of at-risk individuals for cancer genetic consultation. To develop this guideline, a literature search for hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes was conducted using PubMed. In addition, GeneReviews and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were reviewed when applicable. When conflicting guidelines were identified, the evidence was ranked as follows: position papers from national and professional organizations ranked highest, followed by consortium guidelines, and then peer-reviewed publications from single institutions. The criteria for cancer genetic consultation referral are provided in two formats: (i) tables that list the tumor type along with the criteria that, if met, would warrant a referral for a cancer genetic consultation and (ii) an alphabetical list of the syndromes, including a brief summary of each and the rationale for the referral criteria that were selected. Consider referral for a cancer genetic consultation if your patient or any of their first-degree relatives meet any of these referral criteria.Genet Med advance online publication 13 November 2014

Colon and endometrial cancers with mismatch repair deficiency can arise from somatic, rather than germline, mutations.

BACKGROUND & AIMS Patients with Lynch syndrome carry germline mutations in single alleles of genes encoding the mismatch repair (MMR) proteins MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2; when the second allele becomes mutated, cancer can develop. Increased screening for Lynch syndrome has identified patients with tumors that have deficiency in MMR, but no germline mutations in genes encoding MMR proteins. We investigated whether tumors with deficient MMR had acquired somatic mutations in patients without germline mutations in MMR genes using next-generation sequencing. METHODS We analyzed blood and tumor samples from 32 patients with colorectal or endometrial cancer who participated in Lynch syndrome screening studies in Ohio and were found to have tumors with MMR deficiency (based on microsatellite instability and/or absence of MMR proteins in immunohistochemical analysis, without hypermethylation of MLH1), but no germline mutations in MMR genes. Tumor DNA was sequenced for MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, EPCAM, POLE, and POLD1 with ColoSeq and mutation frequencies were established. RESULTS Twenty-two of 32 patients (69%) were found to have 2 somatic (tumor) mutations in MMR genes encoding proteins that were lost from tumor samples, based on immunohistochemistry. Of the 10 remaining tumors 3 had one somatic mutation in a MMR gene, with possible loss of heterozygosity that could lead to MMR deficiency, 6 were found to be false-positive results (19%), and 1 had only one mutation in a MMR gene and remained unexplained. All of the tumors found to have somatic MMR mutations were of the hypermutated phenotype (>12 mutations/megabase); 6 had mutation frequencies >200/megabase, and 5 of these had somatic mutations in POLE, which encodes a DNA polymerase. CONCLUSIONS Some patients are found to have tumors with MMR defects during screening for Lynch syndrome, yet have no identifiable germline mutations in MMR genes. We found that almost 70% of these patients acquire somatic mutations in MMR genes, leading to a hypermutated phenotype of tumor cells. Patients with colon or endometrial cancers with MMR deficiency not explained by germline mutations might undergo analysis for tumor mutations in MMR genes to guide future surveillance guidelines.

Prevalence and Spectrum of Germline Cancer Susceptibility Gene Mutations Among Patients With Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer.

Importance Hereditary cancer syndromes infer high cancer risks and require intensive cancer surveillance, yet the prevalence and spectrum of these conditions among unselected patients with early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely undetermined. Objective To determine the frequency and spectrum of cancer susceptibility gene mutations among patients with early-onset CRC. Design, Setting, and Participants Overall, 450 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer younger than 50 years were prospectively accrued from 51 hospitals into the Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative from January 1, 2013, to June 20, 2016. Mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency was determined by microsatellite instability and/or immunohistochemistry. Germline DNA was tested for mutations in 25 cancer susceptibility genes using next-generation sequencing. Main Outcomes and Measures Mutation prevalence and spectrum in patients with early-onset CRC was determined. Clinical characteristics were assessed by mutation status. Results In total 450 patients younger than 50 years were included in the study, and 75 gene mutations were found in 72 patients (16%). Forty-eight patients (10.7%) had MMR-deficient tumors, and 40 patients (83.3%) had at least 1 gene mutation: 37 had Lynch syndrome (13, MLH1 [including one with constitutional MLH1 methylation]; 16, MSH2; 1, MSH2/monoallelic MUTYH; 2, MSH6; 5, PMS2); 1 patient had the APC c.3920T>A, p.I1307K mutation and a PMS2 variant; 9 patients (18.8%) had double somatic MMR mutations (including 2 with germline biallelic MUTYH mutations); and 1 patient had somatic MLH1 methylation. Four hundred two patients (89.3%) had MMR-proficient tumors, and 32 patients (8%) had at least 1 gene mutation: 9 had mutations in high-penetrance CRC genes (5, APC; 1, APC/PMS2; 2, biallelic MUTYH; 1, SMAD4); 13 patients had mutations in high- or moderate-penetrance genes not traditionally associated with CRC (3, ATM; 1, ATM/CHEK2; 2, BRCA1; 4, BRCA2; 1, CDKN2A; 2, PALB2); 10 patients had mutations in low-penetrance CRC genes (3, APC c.3920T>A, p.I1307K; 7, monoallelic MUTYH). Importantly, 24 of 72 patients (33.3%) who were mutation positive did not meet established genetic testing criteria for the gene(s) in which they had a mutation. Conclusions and Relevance Of 450 patients with early-onset CRC, 72 (16%) had gene mutations. Given the high frequency and wide spectrum of mutations, genetic counseling and testing with a multigene panel could be considered for all patients with early-onset CRC.

Epigenetic silencing of MLH1 in endometrial cancers is associated with larger tumor volume, increased rate of lymph node positivity and reduced recurrence-free survival

OBJECTIVES To determine the relationship between mismatch repair (MMR) classification and clinicopathologic features including tumor volume, and explore outcomes by MMR class in a contemporary cohort. METHODS Single institution cohort evaluating MMR classification for endometrial cancers (EC). MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC)±microsatellite instability (MSI) testing and reflex MLH1 methylation testing was performed. Tumors with MMR abnormalities by IHC or MSI and MLH1 methylation were classified as epigenetic MMR deficiency while those without MLH1 methylation were classified as probable MMR mutations. Clinicopathologic characteristics were analyzed. RESULTS 466 endometrial cancers were classified; 75% as MMR proficient, 20% epigenetic MMR defects, and 5% as probable MMR mutations. Epigenetic MMR defects were associated with advanced stage, higher grade, presence of lymphovascular space invasion, and older age. MMR class was significantly associated with tumor volume, an association not previously reported. The epigenetic MMR defect tumors median volume was 10,220mm3 compared to 3321mm3 and 2,846mm3, for MMR proficient and probable MMR mutations respectively (P<0.0001). Higher tumor volume was associated with lymph node involvement. Endometrioid EC cases with epigenetic MMR defects had significantly reduced recurrence-free survival (RFS). Among advanced stage (III/IV) endometrioid EC the epigenetic MMR defect group was more likely to recur compared to the MMR proficient group (47.7% vs 3.4%) despite receiving similar adjuvant therapy. In contrast, there was no difference in the number of early stage recurrences for the different MMR classes. CONCLUSIONS MMR testing that includes MLH1 methylation analysis defines a subset of tumors that have worse prognostic features and reduced RFS.

Assessment of Tumor Sequencing as a Replacement for Lynch Syndrome Screening and Current Molecular Tests for Patients With Colorectal Cancer

Importance Universal tumor screening for Lynch syndrome (LS) in colorectal cancer (CRC) is recommended and involves up to 6 sequential tests. Somatic gene testing is performed on stage IV CRCs for treatment determination. The diagnostic workup for patients with CRC could be simplified and improved using a single up-front tumor next-generation sequencing test if it has higher sensitivity and specificity than the current screening protocol. Objective To determine whether up-front tumor sequencing (TS) could replace the current multiple sequential test approach for universal tumor screening for LS. Design, Setting, and Participants Tumor DNA from 419 consecutive CRC cases undergoing standard universal tumor screening and germline genetic testing when indicated as part of the multicenter, population-based Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative from October 2015 through February 2016 (the prospective cohort) and 46 patients with CRC known to have LS due to a germline mutation in a mismatch repair gene from January 2013 through September 2015 (the validation cohort) underwent blinded TS. Main Outcomes and Measures Sensitivity of TS compared with microsatellite instability (MSI) testing and immunohistochemical (IHC) staining for the detection of LS. Results In the 465 patients, mean age at diagnosis was 59.9 years (range, 20-96 years), and 241 (51.8%) were female. Tumor sequencing identified all 46 known LS cases from the validation cohort and an additional 12 LS cases from the 419-member prospective cohort. Testing with MSI or IHC, followed by BRAF p.V600E testing missed 5 and 6 cases of LS, respectively. Tumor sequencing alone had better sensitivity (100%; 95% CI, 93.8%-100%) than IHC plus BRAF (89.7%; 95% CI, 78.8%-96.1%; P = .04) and MSI plus BRAF (91.4%; 95% CI, 81.0%-97.1%; P = .07). Tumor sequencing had equal specificity (95.3%; 95% CI, 92.6%-97.2%) to IHC plus BRAF (94.6%; 95% CI, 91.9%-96.6%; P > .99) and MSI plus BRAF (94.8%; 95% CI, 92.2%-96.8%; P = .88). Tumor sequencing identified 284 cases with KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF mutations that could affect therapy for stage IV CRC, avoiding another test. Finally, TS identified 8 patients with germline DPYD mutations that confer toxicity to fluorouracil chemotherapy, which could also be useful for treatment selection. Conclusions and Relevance Up-front TS in CRC is simpler and has superior sensitivity to current multitest approaches to LS screening, while simultaneously providing critical information for treatment selection.

Universal Tumor Screening for Lynch Syndrome

Lynch syndrome is estimated to affect 1 out of every 279 individuals worldwide. However, 95% of individuals with Lynch syndrome are not aware of their diagnosis. Therefore, it is important that we maximize all possible efforts to diagnose individuals with Lynch syndrome. Universal tumor screening is one approach that has been successful in helping to identify patients who might not have been referred for a genetics assessment otherwise. Universal tumor screening consists of testing the paraffin-embedded tumor from individuals with colorectal or endometrial cancer for features of deficient mismatch repair including microsatellite instability and/or absence of any of the four mismatch repair proteins (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) using immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. Several professional organizations have recommended universal tumor screening of all newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients at the time of diagnosis. Reasons for this recommendation are that patients whose tumors exhibit microsatellite instability (whether proven by MSI testing or extrapolated from abnormal IHC testing) have a better prognosis may need different treatment from those without microsatellite instability, and are more likely to have Lynch syndrome. Patients whose tumors exhibit MSI or have abnormal IHC without MLH1 methylation are suspicious for having Lynch syndrome and are candidates for genetic counseling and germline genetic testing. Best practices for implementing universal tumor screening have been explored.

Two-stain immunohistochemical screening for Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer may fail to detect mismatch repair deficiency

Universal screening for Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer is recommended, and immunohistochemistry for the mismatch repair proteins is commonly used. To reduce cost, some screen using only MSH6 and PMS2, with reflex to the partner stain if either are absent (two-stain method). An expression pattern revealing absent MSH2 and intact MSH6 is not expected, but could result in failed Lynch syndrome detection. We analyzed tumors with absent MSH2 but any degree of MSH6 expression to determine if the two-stain method could miss MSH2 mutations. One-thousand seven-hundred thirty colorectal cancer patients from the Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative underwent tumor screening using microsatellite instability and immunohistochemistry. The two-stain method was used for 1235 cases; staining for all four proteins was completed for 495 cases. The proportion of positive cells and staining intensity were reviewed for MSH6, as well as MSH2 when available. Patients with mismatch repair deficiency underwent next-generation sequencing of germline DNA for mismatch repair genes. If negative, tumor next-generation sequencing was performed to assess for somatic mutations. Overall, thirty-three (1.9%, 33/1730) MSH2-absent cases were identified. Of those, fourteen had no MSH6 expression but eight (0.5%, 8/1730) had ambiguous and eleven (0.6%, 11/1730) had convincing MSH6 expression that could have been interpreted as intact. Germline next-generation sequencing identified MSH2 mutations in 11/14 cases with absence of both stains, 7/8 cases with ambiguous MSH6 expression, and 9/11 cases with convincing MSH6 expression. All remaining cases, except one, had double somatic mutations. The two-stain method fails to detect some patients with Lynch syndrome: (1) significant staining weaker than the control may be incorrectly interpreted as intact MSH6, or (2) Weak or focal/patchy MSH6 can be retained with the absence of MSH2. Accordingly, we recommend the four-stain method be used for optimal Lynch syndrome screening detection.

Cancer Risks for PMS2-Associated Lynch Syndrome

PURPOSE Lynch syndrome due to pathogenic variants in the DNA mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 is predominantly associated with colorectal and endometrial cancer, although extracolonic cancers have been described within the Lynch tumor spectrum. However, the age-specific cumulative risk (penetrance) of these cancers is still poorly defined for PMS2-associated Lynch syndrome. Using a large data set from a worldwide collaboration, our aim was to determine accurate penetrance measures of cancers for carriers of heterozygous pathogenic PMS2 variants. METHODS A modified segregation analysis was conducted that incorporated both genotyped and nongenotyped relatives, with conditioning for ascertainment to estimates corrected for bias. Hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated for each cancer site for mutation carriers compared with the general population, followed by estimation of penetrance. RESULTS In total, 284 families consisting of 4,878 first- and second-degree family members were included in the analysis. PMS2 mutation carriers were at increased risk for colorectal cancer (cumulative risk to age 80 years of 13% [95% CI, 7.9% to 22%] for males and 12% [95% CI, 6.7% to 21%] for females) and endometrial cancer (13% [95% CI, 7.0%-24%]), compared with the general population (6.6%, 4.7%, and 2.4%, respectively). There was no clear evidence of an increased risk of ovarian, gastric, hepatobiliary, bladder, renal, brain, breast, prostate, or small bowel cancer. CONCLUSION Heterozygous PMS2 mutation carriers were at small increased risk for colorectal and endometrial cancer but not for any other Lynch syndrome-associated cancer. This finding justifies that PMS2-specific screening protocols could be restricted to colonoscopies. The role of risk-reducing hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for PMS2 mutation carriers needs further discussion.

Histology of colorectal adenocarcinoma with double somatic mismatch repair mutations is indistinguishable from those caused by lynch syndrome

Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common form of hereditary colon cancer. Germline mutations in the mismatch-repair (MMR) genes MLH1, MSH2 (EPCAM), MSH6, and PMS2, followed by a second hit to the remaining allele, lead to cancer development. Universal tumor screening for LS is routinely performed on colon cancer, and screening has identified patients with unexplained MMR deficiency that lack MLH1 methylation and a germline mutation. Tumor sequencing has since identified double somatic (DS) mutations in the MMR gene corresponding with the absent protein in 69% of these patients. We assessed whether histomorphology could distinguish patients with DS mutations from those with LS. Colorectal cancer patients with DS mutations were identified from population-based cohorts from Iceland (2000-2009); Columbus, Ohio (1999-2005); and the state of Ohio (2013-2016). Next-generation sequencing was performed on tumors with unexplained MMR deficiency. Patients with LS from Ohio cohorts were the comparison group. The histologic features associated with MMR deficiency (tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, Crohn-like reaction, histologic subtype, necrosis) were evaluated. We identified 43 tumors with DS mutations and 48 from patients with LS. There was no significant difference in histologic features between tumors in LS patients and tumors with DS mutations. Because histology of tumors with DS mutations is indistinguishable from those caused by LS, tumor sequencing for evaluation of DS mutations should be considered to help clarify sporadic versus hereditary causes of unexplained MMR deficiency.

Using Somatic Mutations from Tumors to Classify Variants in Mismatch Repair Genes

Present guidelines for classification of constitutional variants do not incorporate inferences from mutations seen in tumors, even when these are associated with a specific molecular phenotype. When somatic mutations and constitutional mutations lead to the same molecular phenotype, as for the mismatch repair genes, information from somatic mutations may enable interpretation of previously unclassified variants. To test this idea, we first estimated likelihoods that somatic variants in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 drive microsatellite instability and characteristic IHC staining patterns by calculating likelihoods of high versus low normalized variant read fractions of 153 mutations known to be pathogenic versus those of 760 intronic passenger mutations from 174 paired tumor-normal samples. Mutations that explained the tumor mismatch repair phenotype had likelihood ratio for high variant read fraction of 1.56 (95% CI 1.42-1.71) at sites with no loss of heterozygosity and of 26.5 (95% CI 13.2-53.0) at sites with loss of heterozygosity. Next, we applied these ratios to 165 missense, synonymous, and splice variants observed in tumors, combining in a Bayesian analysis the likelihood ratio corresponding with the adjusted variant read fraction with pretest probabilities derived from published analyses and public databases. We suggest classifications for 86 of 165 variants: 7 benign, 31 likely benign, 22 likely pathogenic, and 26 pathogenic. These results illustrate that for mismatch repair genes, characterization of tumor mutations permits tumor mutation data to inform constitutional variant classification. We suggest modifications to incorporate molecular phenotype in future variant classification guidelines.