Renée C. Niessen

BRAF-V600E is not involved in the colorectal tumorigenesis of HNPCC in patients with functional MLH1 and MSH2 genes

Recently, it was shown that the oncogenic activation of BRAF, a member of the RAS/RAF family of kinases, by the V600E mutation is characteristic for sporadic colon tumors with microsatellite instability. Further, it was shown to associate with the silencing of the mismatch repair (MMR) gene MLH1 by hypermethylation. Moreover, BRAF mutations proved to be absent in tumors from hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome (HNPCC) families with germline mutations in the MMR genes MLH1 and MSH2. These data suggest that the oncogenic activation of BRAF is involved only in sporadic colorectal tumorigenesis. In order to further support this hypothesis, we have extended the analysis of the BRAF gene to a different subset of HNPCC families without germline mutations in MLH1 and MSH2. BRAF-V600E mutations were analysed by automatic sequencing in 38 tumors from HNPCC families with germline mutations in the MSH6 gene and also in HNPCC (suspected) families that do not have mutations in the MMR genes MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6. All patients belong to different families. No mutations were detected in 14 tumors from HNPCC patients with germline mutations in MSH6. Further, no mutations of BRAF were found in tumors from 23 MMR-negative families, from which 13 fulfilled the Amsterdam criteria (HNPCC) and 10 were suspected for HNPCC as they were positive for the Bethesda criteria. Overall, our data reinforce the concept that BRAF is not involved in the colorectal tumorigenesis of HNPCC. The detection of a positive BRAF-V600E mutation in a colorectal cancer suggests a sporadic origin of the disease and the absence of germline alterations of MLH1, MSH2 and also of MSH6. These findings have a potential impact in the genetic testing for HNPCC diagnostics and suggest a potential use of BRAF as exclusion criteria for HNPCC or as a molecular marker of sporadic cancer.

Germline hypermethylation of MLH1 and EPCAM deletions are a frequent cause of Lynch syndrome

It was shown that Lynch syndrome can be caused by germline hypermethylation of the MLH1 and MSH2 promoters. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated very recently that germline deletions of the 3′ region of EPCAM cause transcriptional read‐through which results in silencing of MSH2 by hypermethylation. We wanted to determine the prevalence of germline MLH1 promoter hypermethylation and of germline and somatic MSH2 promoter hypermethylation in a large group of Lynch syndrome‐suspected patients. From a group of 331 Lynch Syndrome‐suspected patients we selected cases, who had no germline MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 mutation and whose tumors showed loss of MLH1 or MSH2, or, if staining was unavailable, had a tumor with microsatellite instability. Methylation assays were performed to test these patients for germline MLH1 and/or MSH2 promoter hypermethylation. Two patients with germline MLH1 promoter hypermethylation and no patients with germline MSH2 promoter hypermethylation were identified. In the subgroup screened for germline MSH2 promoter hypermethylation, we identified 3 patients with somatic MSH2 promoter hypermethylation in their tumors, which was caused by a germline EPCAM deletion. In the group of 331 Lynch Syndrome‐suspected patients, the frequencies of germline MLH1 promoter hypermethylation and somatic MSH2 promoter hypermethylation caused by germline EPCAM deletions are 0.6 and 0.9%, respectively. These mutations, therefore, seem to be rather infrequent. However, the contribution of germline MLH1 hypermethylation and EPCAM deletions to the genetically proven Lynch syndrome cases in this cohort is very high. Previously 27 pathogenic mutations were identified; the newly identified mutations now represent 16% of all mutations.

Recurrence and variability of germline EPCAM deletions in Lynch syndrome

Recently, we identified 3′ end deletions in the EPCAM gene as a novel cause of Lynch syndrome. These truncating EPCAM deletions cause allele‐specific epigenetic silencing of the neighboring DNA mismatch repair gene MSH2 in tissues expressing EPCAM. Here we screened a cohort of unexplained Lynch‐like families for the presence of EPCAM deletions. We identified 27 novel independent MSH2‐deficient families from multiple geographical origins with varying deletions all encompassing the 3′ end of EPCAM, but leaving the MSH2 gene intact. Within The Netherlands and Germany, EPCAM deletions appeared to represent at least 2.8% and 1.1% of the confirmed Lynch syndrome families, respectively. MSH2 promoter methylation was observed in epithelial tissues of all deletion carriers tested, thus confirming silencing of MSH2 as the causative defect. In a total of 45 families, 19 different deletions were found, all including the last two exons and the transcription termination signal of EPCAM. All deletions appeared to originate from Alu‐repeat mediated recombination events. In 17 cases regions of microhomology around the breakpoints were found, suggesting nonallelic homologous recombination as the most likely mechanism. We conclude that 3′ end EPCAM deletions are a recurrent cause of Lynch syndrome, which should be implemented in routine Lynch syndrome diagnostics. Hum Mutat 32:1–8, 2011.

Identification of mismatch repair gene mutations in young patients with colorectal cancer and in patients with multiple tumours associated with hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer

Background: Patients with early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) or those with multiple tumours associated with hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) raise suspicion of the presence of germline DNA mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutations. Aim: To analyse the value of family history, microsatellite instability (MSI) analysis and MMR protein staining in the tumour to predict the presence of an MMR gene mutation in such patients. Methods: In 281 patients diagnosed with CRC before the age of 50 years or with CRC and at least one additional HNPCC-associated cancer, germline mutation analysis in MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 was carried out with denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. MSI analysis with five consensus markers and MMR protein staining for MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 were carried out in the tumours. Results: 25 pathogenic mutations (8 in MLH1, 9 in MSH2 and 8 in MSH6) were found. MSI analysis missed three and immunohistochemistry (IHC) missed two mutation carriers. Sensitivities of family history, MSI analysis and IHC for the presence of a mutation were 76%, 82% and 88%, specificities were 64%, 70% and 84%, and positive predictive values were 19%, 23% and 38%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed the highest odds ratio for IHC (38.3, 95% confidence interval 9.0 to 184). Prevalence of pathogenic germline MMR gene mutations in patients with CRC before the age of 50 years was 6% and in those with ⩾2 HNPCC-associated tumours was 22%. In the second group, no mutation carriers were found among the 29 patients who were diagnosed with their first tumour after the age of 60 years. Conclusion: Family history, MSI analysis and IHC are indicative parameters to select patients with CRC for MMR gene mutation analysis. The data show that IHC is the best single selection criterion.

A database to support the interpretation of human mismatch repair gene variants.

Germline mutations in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2 can cause Lynch syndrome. This syndrome, also known as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), is an autosomal dominantly‐inherited disorder predominantly characterized by colorectal and endometrial cancer. Truncating MMR gene mutations generally offer a clear handle for genetic counseling and allow for presymptomatic testing. In contrast, the clinical implications of most missense mutations and small in‐frame deletions detected in patients suspected of having Lynch syndrome are unclear. We have constructed an online database, the Mismatch Repair Gene Unclassified Variants Database (www.mmruv.info), for information on the results of functional assays and other findings that may help in classifying these MMR gene variants. Ideally, such mutations should be clinically classified by a broad expert panel rather than by the individual database curators. In addition, the different MMR gene mutation databases could be interlinked or combined to increase user‐friendliness and avoid unnecessary overlap between them. Both activities are presently being organized by the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumours (InSiGHT; www.insight‐group.org). Hum Mutat 29(11), 1337–1341, 2008.

Paediatric intestinal cancer and polyposis due to bi-allelic PMS2 mutations: Case series, review and follow-up guidelines

BACKGROUND Bi-allelic germline mutations of one of the DNA mismatch repair genes, so far predominantly found in PMS2, cause constitutional MMR-deficiency syndrome. This rare disorder is characterised by paediatric intestinal cancer and other malignancies. We report the clinical, immunohistochemical and genetic characterisation of four families with bi-allelic germline PMS2 mutations. We present an overview of the published gastrointestinal manifestations of CMMR-D syndrome and propose recommendations for gastro-intestinal screening. METHODS AND RESULTS The first proband developed a cerebral angiosarcoma at age 2 and two colorectal adenomas at age 7. Genetic testing identified a complete PMS2 gene deletion and a frameshift c.736_741delinsTGTGTGTGAAG (p.Pro246CysfsX3) mutation. In the second family, both the proband and her brother had multiple intestinal adenomas, initially wrongly diagnosed as familial adenomatous polyposis. A splice site c.2174+1G>A, and a missense c.137G>T (p.Ser46Ile) mutation in PMS2 were identified. The third patient was diagnosed with multiple colorectal adenomas at age 11; he developed a high-grade dysplastic colorectal adenocarcinoma at age 21. Two intragenic PMS2 deletions were found. The fourth proband developed a cerebral anaplastic ganglioma at age 9 and a high-grade colerectal dysplastic adenoma at age 10 and carries a homozygous c.2174+1G>A mutation. Tumours of all patients showed microsatellite instability and/or loss of PMS2 expression. CONCLUSIONS Our findings show the association between bi-allelic germline PMS2 mutations and severe childhood-onset gastrointestinal manifestations, and support the notion that patients with early-onset gastrointestinal adenomas and cancer should be investigated for CMMR-D syndrome. We recommend yearly follow-up with colonoscopy from age 6 and simultaneous video-capsule small bowel enteroscopy from age 8.

High EPHB2 mutation rate in gastric but not endometrial tumors with microsatellite instability

The EPH/EFN family of receptor tyrosine kinases regulates cell adhesion and migration and has an important role in controlling cell positioning in the normal intestinal epithelium. Inactivation of EPHB2 has recently been shown to accelerate tumorigenesis in the colon and rectum, and we have previously demonstrated frequent frameshift mutations (41%) in an A9 coding microsatellite repeat in exon 17 of EPHB2 in colorectal tumors with microsatellite instability (MSI). In this study, we extended these analyses to extracolonic MSI cancers, and found frameshift EPHB2 mutations in 39% (25/64) of gastric tumors and 14% (8/56) of endometrial tumors. Regression analysis of these EPHB2 mutation data on the basis of our previously proposed statistical model identified EPHB2 as a selective target of frameshift mutations in MSI gastric cancers but not in MSI endometrial carcinomas. These results suggest a functional role for EPHB2 in gastric tumor progression, and emphasize the differences between the tumorigenic processes in MSI gastrointestinal and endometrial cancer.

Colorectal cancer and the CHEK2 1100delC mutation

The CHEK2 1100delC mutation was recently identified as a low‐penetrance breast cancer susceptibility allele. The mutation occurred more frequently in families with clustering of breast and colorectal cancers (CRCs) than in families with clustering of breast cancer only. Hence, the 1100delC mutation could also be a low‐penetrance CRC susceptibility allele. To test this hypothesis, we examined the mutation in 629 unselected CRC cases, 230 controls, and 105 selected CRCs diagnosed in patients before age 50. The mutation was observed in 1.6% of unselected patients and in 0.3% of controls (Not significant (NS)). After stratifying unselected patients according to defined genetic risk (on the basis of age at diagnosis and family history of colorectal and endometrial cancer), the highest frequency was observed in high‐risk patients (12.5%), followed by moderate‐risk patients (3.3%), and was lowest in low‐risk patients (1.0%, Ptrend 0.014). In selected patients, 1.6% carried the mutation (NS). Subgroup analyses for tumor localization, gender, and age at diagnosis did not reveal an association with the 1100delC genotype. In addition, a pooled analysis, combining data of one published study in unselected CRC cases and our study, also did not reveal an association. In conclusion, the frequency of the 1100delC genotype was neither significantly increased in unselected CRC patients nor in selected CRC patients diagnosed before age 50. However, after stratifying unselected CRC patients according to defined genetic risk, a significant trend of increasing frequency was observed. Together, the results are consistent with a low‐penetrance effect (OR 1.5–2.0) of the CHEK2 1100delC on CRC risk. Large case–control studies are required to clarify the exact role of the CHEK2 1100delC mutation in CRC.

PMS2 involvement in patients suspected of Lynch syndrome

It is well‐established that germline mutations in the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 cause Lynch syndrome. However, mutations in these three genes do not account for all Lynch syndrome (suspected) families. Recently, it was shown that germline mutations in another mismatch repair gene, PMS2, play a far more important role in Lynch syndrome than initially thought. To explore this further, we determined the prevalence of pathogenic germline PMS2 mutations in a series of Lynch syndrome‐suspected patients. Ninety‐seven patients who had early‐onset microsatellite instable colorectal or endometrial cancer, or multiple Lynch syndrome‐associated tumors and/or were from an Amsterdam Criteria II‐positive family were selected for this study. These patients carried no pathogenic germline mutation in MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6. When available, tumors were investigated for immunohistochemical staining (IHC) for PMS2. PMS2 was screened in all patients by exon‐by‐exon sequencing. We identified four patients with a pathogenic PMS2 mutation (4%) among the 97 patients we selected. IHC of PMS2 was informative in one of the mutation carriers, and in this case, the tumor showed loss of PMS2 expression. In conclusion, our study confirms the finding of previous studies that PMS2 is more frequently involved in Lynch syndrome than originally expected.

MUTYH and the mismatch repair system : partners in crime?

Biallelic germline mutations of MUTYH—a gene encoding a base excision repair protein—are associated with an increased susceptibility of colorectal cancer. Whether monoallelic MUTYH mutations also increase cancer risk is not yet clear, although there is some evidence suggesting a slight increase of risk. As the MUTYH protein interacts with the mismatch repair (MMR) system, we hypothesised that the combination of a monoallelic MUTYH mutation with an MMR gene mutation increases cancer risk. We therefore investigated the prevalence of monoallelic MUTYH mutations in carriers of a germline MMR mutation: 40 carriers of a truncating mutation (group I) and 36 of a missense mutation (group II). These patients had been diagnosed with either colorectal or endometrial cancer. We compared their MUTYH mutation frequencies with those observed in a group of 134 Dutch colorectal and endometrial cancer patients without an MMR gene mutation (0.7%) and those reported for Caucasian controls (1.5%). In group I one monoallelic MUTYH mutation was found (2.5%). In group II five monoallelic germline MUTYH mutations were found (14%), four of them in MSH6 missense mutation carriers (20%). Of all patients with an MMR gene mutation, only those with a missense mutation showed a significantly higher frequency of (monoallelic) MUTYH mutations than the Dutch cancer patients without MMR gene mutations (P=0.002) and the published controls (P=0.001). These results warrant further study to test the hypothesis of mutations in MMR genes (in particular MSH6) and MUTYH acting together to increase cancer risk.