Prevalence of germ-line mutations in cancer genes among pancreatic cancer patients with a positive family history.

PurposePanel-based genetic testing has identified increasing numbers of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who carry germ-line mutations. However, small sample sizes or number of genes evaluated limit prevalence estimates of these mutations. We estimated prevalence of mutations in PDAC patients with positive family history.MethodsWe sequenced 25 cancer susceptibility genes in lymphocyte DNA from 302 PDAC patients in the Mayo Clinic Biospecimen Resource for Pancreatic Research Registry. Kindreds containing at least two first-degree relatives with PDAC met criteria for familial pancreatic cancer (FPC), while the remaining were familial, but not FPC.ResultsThirty-six patients (12%) carried at least one deleterious mutation in one of 11 genes. Of FPC patients, 25/185 (14%) were carriers, while 11/117 (9%) non-FPC patients with family history were carriers. Deleterious mutations (n) identified in PDAC patients were BRCA2 (11), ATM (8), CDKN2A (4), CHEK2 (4), MUTYH/MYH (3 heterozygotes, not biallelic), BRCA1 (2), and 1 each in BARD1, MSH2, NBN, PALB2, and PMS2. Novel mutations were found in ATM, BARD1, and PMS2.ConclusionMultiple susceptibility gene testing in PDAC patients with family history of pancreatic cancer is warranted regardless of FPC status and will inform genetic risk counseling for families.

Cancer Susceptibility Gene Mutations in Individuals With Colorectal Cancer.

Purpose Hereditary factors play an important role in colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, yet the prevalence of germline cancer susceptibility gene mutations in patients with CRC unselected for high-risk features (eg, early age at diagnosis, personal/family history of cancer or polyps, tumor microsatellite instability [MSI], mismatch repair [MMR] deficiency) is unknown. Patients and Methods We recruited 1,058 participants who received CRC care in a clinic-based setting without preselection for age at diagnosis, personal/family history, or MSI/MMR results. All participants underwent germline testing for mutations in 25 genes associated with inherited cancer risk. Each gene was categorized as high penetrance or moderate penetrance on the basis of published estimates of the lifetime cancer risks conferred by pathogenic germline mutations in that gene. Results One hundred five (9.9%; 95% CI, 8.2% to 11.9%) of 1,058 participants carried one or more pathogenic mutations, including 33 (3.1%) with Lynch syndrome (LS). Twenty-eight (96.6%) of 29 available LS CRCs demonstrated abnormal MSI/MMR results. Seventy-four (7.0%) of 1,058 participants carried non-LS gene mutations, including 23 (2.2%) with mutations in high-penetrance genes (five APC, three biallelic MUTYH, 11 BRCA1/2, two PALB2, one CDKN2A, and one TP53), 15 of whom lacked clinical histories suggestive of their underlying mutation. Thirty-eight (3.6%) participants had moderate-penetrance CRC risk gene mutations (19 monoallelic MUTYH, 17 APC*I1307K, two CHEK2). Neither proband age at CRC diagnosis, family history of CRC, nor personal history of other cancers significantly predicted the presence of pathogenic mutations in non-LS genes. Conclusion Germline cancer susceptibility gene mutations are carried by 9.9% of patients with CRC. MSI/MMR testing reliably identifies LS probands, although 7.0% of patients with CRC carry non-LS mutations, including 1.0% with BRCA1/2 mutations.

Inherited Mutations in Men Undergoing Multigene Panel Testing for Prostate Cancer: Emerging Implications for Personalized Prostate Cancer Genetic Evaluation.

PURPOSE: Multigene panels are commercially available for the evaluation of prostate cancer (PCA) predisposition, which necessitates tailored genetic counseling (GC) for men. Here we describe emerging results of Genetic Evaluation of Men, prospective multigene testing study in PCA to inform personalized genetic counseling, with emerging implications for referrals, cancer screening, and precision therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria for men affected by or at high risk for PCA encompass age, race, family history (FH), and PCA stage/grade. Detailed demographic, clinical, and FH data were obtained from participants and medical records. Multigene testing was conducted after GC. Mutation rates were summarized by eligibility criteria and compared across FH data. The 95% CI of mutation prevalence was constructed by using Poisson distribution. RESULTS: Of 200 men enrolled, 62.5% had PCA. Eleven (5.5%; 95% CI, 3.0% to 9.9%) had mutations; 63.6% of mutations were in DNA repair genes. FH of breast cancer was significantly associated with mutation status (P = .004), and FH that met criteria for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome was significantly associated with PCA (odds ratio, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.05 to 5.18). Variants of uncertain significance were reported in 70 men (35.0%). Among mutation carriers, 45.5% had personal/FH concordant with the gene. A tailored GC model was developed based on emerging findings. CONCLUSION: Multigene testing for PCA identifies mutations mostly in DNA repair genes, with implications for precision therapy. The study highlights the importance of comprehensive genetic evaluation for PCA beyond metastatic disease, including early-stage disease with strong FH. Detailed FH is important for referrals of men for genetic evaluation. The results inform precision GC and cancer screening for men and their male and female blood relatives.

Germline multi-gene hereditary cancer panel testing in an unselected endometrial cancer cohort.

Hereditary endometrial carcinoma is associated with germline mutations in Lynch syndrome genes. The role of other cancer predisposition genes is unclear. We aimed to determine the prevalence of cancer predisposition gene mutations in an unselected endometrial carcinoma patient cohort. Mutations in 25 genes were identified using a next-generation sequencing-based panel applied in 381 endometrial carcinoma patients who had undergone tumor testing to screen for Lynch syndrome. Thirty-five patients (9.2%) had a deleterious mutation: 22 (5.8%) in Lynch syndrome genes (three MLH1, five MSH2, two EPCAM-MSH2, six MSH6, and six PMS2) and 13 (3.4%) in 10 non-Lynch syndrome genes (four CHEK2, one each in APC, ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, NBN, PTEN, and RAD51C). Of 21 patients with deleterious mutations in Lynch syndrome genes with tumor testing, 2 (9.5%) had tumor testing results suggestive of sporadic cancer. Of 12 patients with deleterious mutations in MSH6 and PMS2, 10 were diagnosed at age >50 and 8 did not have a family history of Lynch syndrome-associated cancers. Patients with deleterious mutations in non-Lynch syndrome genes were more likely to have serous tumor histology (23.1 vs 6.4%, P=0.02). The three patients with non-Lynch syndrome deleterious mutations and serous histology had mutations in BRCA2, BRIP1, and RAD51C. Current clinical criteria fail to identify a portion of actionable mutations in Lynch syndrome and other hereditary cancer syndromes. Performance characteristics of tumor testing are sufficiently robust to implement universal tumor testing to identify patients with Lynch syndrome. Germline multi-gene panel testing is feasible and informative, leading to the identification of additional actionable mutations.

Frequency of Germline Mutations in 25 Cancer Susceptibility Genes in a Sequential Series of Patients With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Testing for germline mutations in BRCA1/2 is standard for select patients with breast cancer to guide clinical management. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) allows testing for mutations in additional breast cancer predisposition genes. The frequency of germline mutations detected by using NGS has been reported in patients with breast cancer who were referred for BRCA1/2 testing or with triple-negative breast cancer. We assessed the frequency and predictors of mutations in 25 cancer predisposition genes, including BRCA1/2, in a sequential series of patients with breast cancer at an academic institution to examine the utility of genetic testing in this population. METHODS: Patients with stages I to III breast cancer who were seen at a single cancer center between 2010 and 2012, and who agreed to participate in research DNA banking, were included (N = 488). Personal and family cancer histories were collected and germline DNA was sequenced with NGS to identify mutations. RESULTS: Deleterious mutations were identified in 10.7% of women, including 6.1% in BRCA1/2 (5.1% in non-Ashkenazi Jewish patients) and 4.6% in other breast/ovarian cancer predisposition genes including CHEK2 (n = 10), ATM (n = 4), BRIP1 (n = 4), and one each in PALB2, PTEN, NBN, RAD51C, RAD51D, MSH6, and PMS2. Whereas young age (P < .01), Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry (P < .01), triple-negative breast cancer (P = .01), and family history of breast/ovarian cancer (P = .01) predicted for BRCA1/2 mutations, no factors predicted for mutations in other breast cancer predisposition genes. CONCLUSION: Among sequential patients with breast cancer, 10.7% were found to have a germline mutation in a gene that predisposes women to breast or ovarian cancer, using a panel of 25 predisposition genes. Factors that predict for BRCA1/2 mutations do not predict for mutations in other breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility genes when these genes are analyzed as a single group. Additional cohorts will be helpful to define individuals at higher risk of carrying mutations in genes other than BRCA1/2.

A comparison of the phenotype and genotype in adenomatous polyposis patients with and without a family history.

OBJECTIVES: Adenomatous polyposis of the colon is often secondary to an inherited mutation in adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) gene, however, approximately one third of patients have no family history of the disease. We studied the phenotype and genotype of adenomatous polyposis in patients without a family history. METHODS: A cohort of 57 unrelated adenomatous polyposis patients were evaluated. Seventeen patients with no family history were compared with 40 patients who had a positive family history of the disease. Family history and medical records were collected and analyzed. Germline APC and Mut Y homologue (MYH) testing was undertaken. RESULTS: Patients without a family history were diagnosed with polyposis at an older age (41 years vs. 32 years) and presenting more frequently with symptoms (76 vs 20, P < 0.05). The number of colonic polyps and frequency of extracolonic manifestation associated with adenomatous polyposis did not differ between the two groups. APC mutations were detected less frequently among patients without a family history of the disease (4 out of 17 vs 25 out of 40, P=0.007), even among those with greater than 100 colorectal adenomas (4 out of 12 versus 21 out of 29, P=0.03). One homozygous MYH mutation carrier (G382D) was detected among the six patients without a family history and without a germline APC mutation who were tested. CONCLUSIONS: Adenomatous polyposis patients without a family history are usually diagnosed with symptoms, and at a later age. Phenotypically, they are similar to those with a family history. However, germline APC mutations are detected far less frequently in patients without a family history. A small percentage of these cases may be secondary to biallelic germline MYH mutations.

Low rate of microsatellite instability in young patients with adenomas: reassessing the Bethesda guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Screening adenomas for microsatellite instability (MSI) in patients younger than 40 yr of age has been recommended by the Bethesda Guidelines as a means of identifying patients at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). We sought to determine the rate of MSI in adenomas removed from individuals under 40 yr of age over a 5-yr period in a university general gastroenterology practice. METHODS: We identified patients between 18 and 39 yr of age with endoscopically removed adenomatous colorectal polyps. Patients with polyposis syndromes, inflammatory bowel disease, or colorectal carcinoma were excluded. A three-generation family history was obtained via telephone interview. Endoscopic and histology reports were reviewed. Adenomas were tested for MSI using the BAT26 and BAT40 microsatellite markers, and expression of the MSH2 and MLH1 proteins was assessed by immunostaining. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients had 46 adenomas removed endoscopically. Out of 34 patients, 14 (41%) had a family history of colorectal cancer and 3 were from Amsterdam criteria positive families. A total of 28 of 46 adenomas (61%) were distal to the splenic flexure. Polyps ranged in size from 2 to 20 mm and averaged 6.6 mm. Five polyps (11%) were tubulovillous adenomas, and the remainder were tubular adenomas. None of the polyps were serrated adenomas and none demonstrated high-grade dysplasia. Among the 40 adenomas available for testing, none demonstrated MSI using either BAT26 (0/40) or BAT40 (0/21), nor did any of the polyps tested demonstrate loss of either MSH2 or MLH1 expression (0/16). CONCLUSION: Screening adenomas from patients younger than 40 yr of age for MSI was ineffective in identifying potentially new cases of HNPCC. New strategies that improve on the current clinical and molecular screening methods should be developed so that at-risk individuals can be identified and referred for germline testing before developing their first cancer.

BRAF mutation is frequently present in sporadic colorectal cancer with methylated hMLH1, but not in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: The BRAF gene encodes a serine/threonine kinase and plays an important role in the mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway. BRAF mutations in sporadic colorectal cancer with microsatellite instability (MSI) are more frequently detected than those in microsatellite stable cancer. In this study, we sought to compare the frequencies of BRAF mutations in sporadic colorectal cancer with MSI with those in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We analyzed BRAF mutations in 26 colorectal cancer cell lines, 80 sporadic colorectal cancers, and 20 tumors from HNPCC patients by DNA sequencing and sequence-specific PCR. The methylation status of the hMLH1 gene was measured by either sequencing or restriction enzyme digestion after NaHSO(3) treatment. RESULTS: We observed a strong correlation of BRAF mutation with hMLH1 promoter methylation. BRAF mutations were present in 13 of 15 (87%) of the colorectal cell lines and cancers with methylated hMLH1, whereas only 4 of 91 (4%) of the cell lines and cancers with unmethylated hMLH1 carried the mutations (P < 0.00001). Sixteen of 17 mutations were at residue 599 (V599E). A BRAF mutation was also identified at residue 463 (G463V) in one cell line. In addition, BRAF mutations were not found in any cancers or cell lines with K-ras mutations. In 20 MSI+ cancers from HNPCC patients, however, BRAF mutations were not detectable, including a subset of 9 tumors with negative hMLH1 immunostaining and methylated hMLH1. CONCLUSIONS: BRAF mutations are frequently present in sporadic colorectal cancer with methylated hMLH1, but not in HNPCC-related cancers. This discrepancy of BRAF mutations between sporadic MSI+ cancer and HNPCC might be used in a strategy for the detection of HNPCC families.

Genotype and phenotype of patients with both familial adenomatous polyposis and thyroid carcinoma.

The incidence of thyroid carcinoma in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is thought to be 1%-2%, with the majority of cases being female. We have investigated the phenotype and genotype of 16 patients with FAP associated thyroid carcinoma. Among 1194 FAP patients studied in two high risk registries in North America (Familial Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry, Toronto and University California, San Francisco), 16 (1.3%) unrelated patients with FAP associated thyroid cancers were identified. Adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) gene testing was performed in 14 of the 16 cases. The average age of diagnosis for FAP and thyroid carcinoma was 29 years (range 17-52 years) and 33 years (range 17-55 years), respectively. All FAP patients except 1 had more than 100 colonic adenomas. Extracolonic manifestations, beside thyroid cancer, were presented in 81% (n = 13) of the patients, including gastric and duodenal polyps, desmoid tumor, osteoma, epidermoid cyst, sebaceous cyst and lipoma. Colorectal cancer was diagnosed in 38% (n = 6) of the patients. The pathology of the FAP associated thyroid cancer was predominantly papillary carcinoma. Germline mutations were identified in 12 of 14 patients tested. Mutations proximal to the mutation cluster region (1286-1513) were detected in 9 cases. Thyroid cancer in our FAP population was rare, predominantly in females and showed papillary carcinoma histology. Additionally, thyroid cancer in our patients occurred in the setting of classic FAP phenotype. Germline mutations were located predominantly outside the APC mutation cluster region.

Hereditary polyposis syndromes and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer due to hereditary syndromes comprises approximately 5% of the overall colorectal cancer burden. Conditions fall into two distinct categories, the polyposis syndromes and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. It is important for the clinician to have a working knowledge of both as screening and surveillance recommendations differ significantly from those applicable to the general population. The polyposis syndromes include familial adenomatous polyposis, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, juvenile polyposis, and Cowden syndrome. For each condition, a review of both the intestinal and extra-intestinal clinical findings is presented as well as the genetic basis, genetic testing, screening, surveillance and treatment options. As genetic testing for several of these conditions has recently become both commercially available and standard practice, special attention is given to indications and strategies for genetic testing in hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes.

Comparison of selection strategies for genetic testing of patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma: effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Molecular testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma (HNPCC) is becoming standard care and it is cost-effective compared with no genetic testing. However, the best strategy for detection of HNPCC gene carriers is unknown. METHODS: We use a decision analytic model to evaluate the effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness of four commonly used testing strategies to detect HNPCC gene carriers. The model starts with a population of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) patients and measures costs, the number of gene carriers detected, and incremental costs per gene carrier detected. RESULTS: We found that germline testing on only those CRC probands who meet the Amsterdam criteria detects the fewest gene carriers and has the lowest cost whereas tumor microsatellite instability (MSI) testing of all CRC patients and families has the highest cost and detects the most gene carriers. When cost-effectiveness is considered, the mixed strategy (MSH2 and MLH1 testing on those who meet the Amsterdam criteria and germline testing for the remainder who meet less stringent modified criteria and are MSI-High) seems superior. The mixed strategy detects 59.6 mutation carriers per 1000 CRC cases and costs much less than the test all strategy, which has an incremental cost-effectiveness of $51,151. The mixed strategy often other strategies and when compared to the Amsterdam strategy, has a cost-effectiveness of only $6441 per gene carrier detected. CONCLUSIONS: It is not very effective to limit genetic testing to only individuals who meet the Amsterdam criteria, as many gene carriers are missed. However, testing all CRC patients for tumor MSI-H, although effective, may be prohibitively expensive. A mixed strategy is the more cost-effective approach.

Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer in young colorectal cancer patients: high-risk clinic versus population-based registry.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Early onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is an important feature of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). We sought to compare rates of genetically defined HNPCC among individuals with early onset CRC drawn from a high-risk clinic and a population-based cancer registry. METHODS: Probands with CRC diagnosed before 36 years of age were enrolled from a high-risk CRC clinic at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and a population-based Kaiser Permanente (KP) Health Plan cancer registry. Probands provided cancer family histories and tumors for microsatellite instability (MSI) testing and MSH2/MLH1 protein immunostaining. Germline MSH2 and MLH1 mutational analysis was performed. RESULTS: Forty-three probands were enrolled from UCSF and 23 from KP. The UCSF and KP probands had similar median age of onset of CRC (30 vs. 31 years) and the percentage with any personal or family history of another HNPCC-related cancer (70% vs. 74%). However, 28 of 40 (70%) of the UCSF tumors were MSI-H compared with 6 of 18 (33%) of KP tumors (P = 0.01), and 13 germline MSH2 or MLH1 mutations were found in the UCSF group compared with 0 in the KP group (P = 0.0001). In a multivariate analysis, institution (P = 0.002) and the total number of colorectal cancers in the family (P = 0.0001) were independent predictors of MSH2 or MLH1 mutation. CONCLUSIONS: Family history of cancer is an important feature of HNPCC, even among individuals with early onset CRC. Caution must be undertaken when extrapolating data regarding HNPCC from high-risk clinic populations to the general population.