Search

Over the last decade, tremendous progress has been made in our understanding, clinical evaluation, and management of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC). This review provides an overview of recent developments and highlights opportunities and future challenges for clinical translation. Novel genes have been identified associated with predisposition to CRC and polyposis including, POLE, POLD1, NTHL1, MSH3, and RNF43. Genetic testing has transitioned from phenotype-specific single-gene testing to multigene panels, and universal screening programmes for Lynch syndrome (LS) have been widely implemented. In addition, CRC patients with LS can now access precision medicine through the recent discovery of immune checkpoint inhibitors and risk-reducing interventions. Our recent advances in hereditary CRC can significantly decrease cancer-related morbidity and mortality. However, several barriers to clinical translation have been reported. Further characterisation of novel and non-traditional CRC genes improved multi-disciplinary communication, and patient education is now required.

Funder: Victorian Cancer Agency, Funder: NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Funder: Cancer Research UK, Funder: Cancer Council Tasmania, Funder: Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Funder: Cancer Australia, Funder: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Funder: Fundación Científica de la Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer, Funder: Cancer Council South Australia, Funder: Swedish Cancer Society, Funder: NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Funder: Institut Català de la Salut, Funder: Cancer Council Victoria, Funder: Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Funder: National Institutes of Health, BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is a rare familial cancer syndrome caused by pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2, that cause predisposition to various cancers, predominantly colorectal and endometrial cancer. Data are emerging that pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes increase the risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer. The IMPACT study is prospectively assessing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in men with germline mismatch repair pathogenic variants. Here, we report the usefulness of PSA screening, prostate cancer incidence, and tumour characteristics after the first screening round in men with and without these germline pathogenic variants. METHODS: The IMPACT study is an international, prospective study. Men aged 40-69 years without a previous prostate cancer diagnosis and with a known germline pathogenic variant in the MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 gene, and age-matched male controls who tested negative for a familial pathogenic variant in these genes were recruited from 34 genetic and urology clinics in eight countries, and underwent a baseline PSA screening. Men who had a PSA level higher than 3·0 ng/mL were offered a transrectal, ultrasound-guided, prostate biopsy and a histopathological analysis was done. All participants are undergoing a minimum of 5 years' annual screening. The primary endpoint was to determine the incidence, stage, and pathology of screening-detected prostate cancer in carriers of pathogenic variants compared with non-carrier controls. We used Fisher's exact test to compare the number of cases, cancer incidence, and positive predictive values of the PSA cutoff and biopsy between carriers and non-carriers and the differences between disease types (ie, cancer vs no cancer, clinically significant cancer vs no cancer). We assessed screening outcomes and tumour characteristics by pathogenic variant status. Here we present results from the first round of PSA screening in the IMPACT study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00261456, and is now closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2012, and March 1, 2020, 828 men were recruited (644 carriers of mismatch repair pathogenic variants [204 carriers of MLH1, 305 carriers of MSH2, and 135 carriers of MSH6] and 184 non-carrier controls [65 non-carriers of MLH1, 76 non-carriers of MSH2, and 43 non-carriers of MSH6]), and in order to boost the sample size for the non-carrier control groups, we randomly selected 134 non-carriers from the BRCA1 and BRCA2 cohort of the IMPACT study, who were included in all three non-carrier cohorts. Men were predominantly of European ancestry (899 [93%] of 953 with available data), with a mean age of 52·8 years (SD 8·3). Within the first screening round, 56 (6%) men had a PSA concentration of more than 3·0 ng/mL and 35 (4%) biopsies were done. The overall incidence of prostate cancer was 1·9% (18 of 962; 95% CI 1·1-2·9). The incidence among MSH2 carriers was 4·3% (13 of 305; 95% CI 2·3-7·2), MSH2 non-carrier controls was 0·5% (one of 210; 0·0-2·6), MSH6 carriers was 3·0% (four of 135; 0·8-7·4), and none were detected among the MLH1 carriers, MLH1 non-carrier controls, and MSH6 non-carrier controls. Prostate cancer incidence, using a PSA threshold of higher than 3·0 ng/mL, was higher in MSH2 carriers than in MSH2 non-carrier controls (4·3% vs 0·5%; p=0·011) and MSH6 carriers than MSH6 non-carrier controls (3·0% vs 0%; p=0·034). The overall positive predictive value of biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 51·4% (95% CI 34·0-68·6), and the overall positive predictive value of a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 32·1% (20·3-46·0). INTERPRETATION: After the first screening round, carriers of MSH2 and MSH6 pathogenic variants had a higher incidence of prostate cancer compared with age-matched non-carrier controls. These findings support the use of targeted PSA screening in these men to identify those with clinically significant prostate cancer. Further annual screening rounds will need to confirm these findings. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research support to Biomedical Research Centres (The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust; Oxford; Manchester and the Cambridge Clinical Research Centre), Mr and Mrs Jack Baker, the Cancer Council of Tasmania, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Cancer Council of Victoria, Cancer Council of South Australia, the Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), the Institut Català de la Salut, Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute, Swedish Cancer Society, General Hospital in Malmö Foundation for Combating Cancer.

Background Lynch syndrome (LS), the most common inherited form of colorectal cancer (CRC), is responsible for 3% of all cases of CRC. LS is caused by a mismatch repair gene defect and is characterized by a high risk for CRC, endometrial cancer and several other cancers. Identification of LS is of utmost importance because colonoscopic surveillance substantially improves a patient’s prognosis. Recently, a network of physicians in Middle Eastern and North African (ME/NA) countries was established to improve the identification and management of LS families. The aim of the present survey was to evaluate current healthcare for families with LS in this region. Methods A questionnaire was developed that addressed the following issues: availability of clinical management guidelines for LS; attention paid to family history of cancer; availability of genetic services for identification and diagnosis of LS; and assessment of knowledge of LS surveillance. Members of the network and authors of recent papers on LS from ME/NA and neighbouring countries were invited to participate in the survey and complete the online questionnaire. Results A total of 55 individuals were invited and 19 respondents from twelve countries including Algeria, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine, Tunisia, and Turkey completed the questionnaire. The results showed that family history of CRC is considered in less than half of the surveyed countries. Guidelines for the management of LS are available in three out of twelve countries. The identification and selection of families for genetic testing were based on clinical criteria (Amsterdam criteria II or Revised Bethesda criteria) in most countries, and only one country performed universal screening. In most of the surveyed countries genetic services were available in few hospitals or only in a research setting. However, surveillance of LS families was offered in the majority of countries and most frequently consisted of regular colonoscopy. Conclusion The identification and management of LS in ME/NA countries are suboptimal and as a result most LS families in the region remain undetected. Future efforts should focus on increasing awareness of LS amongst both the general population and doctors, and on the improvement of the infrastructure in these countries.

Hystero-embryoscopy (HEpy) can be used for an in situ autopsy of an embryo in spontaneous as well as in repeated pregnancies loss (RPL). Such an autopsy of a miscarriage embryo can provide useful information regarding the morphology of the embryo, ruling out anatomical defects and collecting the embryo under direct vision anticipating an accurate embryo karyotyping. In this prospective study the cause of a spontaneous miscarriage (SM) and RPL was investigated. Many RPL cases that have been diagnosed and treated may experience a consequent miscarriage during next pregnancy. This constituted a major interest in our research. Embryo autopsy was performed by hysteroscopy technique using 2.9–5 mm hysteroscopes, 5Fr graspers and scissors and normal saline as distending medium. The embryo morphology results were correlated with the genetic results and compared with the patients’ diagnosis and treatment during the last miscarriage. Chromosomal abnormalities diagnosed in 70% of both SM and RPL cases while morphological defects observed in 51% and 15.7% respectively. In 10.6% of the SM and 5.9% of the RPL cases HEpy failed to diagnose a clear cause of the miscarriage indicating other etiological factors, probably due to myometrial dysfunction. Embryoscopy seems to be a valuable method for accurate diagnosis of the miscarriage cause during first trimester SM and RPL and can be especially useful for future treatment purposes. Standardization of RPL patients’ clinical characteristics criteria and treatment protocols are imperative to perform studies with reliable results. The combination of 4D sonography, in situ embryo autopsy together with embryo genetic analysis will probably enlighten our knowledge about the cause of SM and RPL.