Accuracy of Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer Testing Criteria and Outcomes in Patients With a Germline Mutation in CDH1.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Germline mutations in the cadherin 1, type 1, E-cadherin gene (CDH1) cause a predisposition to gastric cancer. We evaluated the ability of the internationally accepted hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) criteria to identify individuals with pathogenic mutations in CDH1, and assessed their outcomes. The criteria were as follows: families with 2 or more cases of gastric cancer, with at least 1 patient diagnosed with diffuse gastric cancer (DGC) before age 50; families with 3 or more cases of DGC; families with 1 DGC before the age of 40; and families with a history of DGC and lobular breast cancer, with 1 diagnosis before the age of 50. METHODS: We collected results of a CDH1 mutation analysis of 578 individuals from 499 families tested in The Netherlands between 1999 and 2014 (118 families met the HDGC criteria for testing and 236 did not; there were 145 families with incomplete data and/or availability of only first-degree relatives). Data were linked with family histories and findings from clinical and pathology analyses. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis were used to evaluate the overall survival of patients with and without CDH1 mutations. RESULTS: In a cohort study in The Netherlands, the HDGC criteria identified individuals with a germline CDH1 mutation with a positive predictive value of 14% and 89% sensitivity. There were 18 pathogenic CDH1 mutations in 499 families (4%); 16 of these mutations were detected in the 118 families who met the HDGC criteria for testing. One pathogenic CDH1 mutation was detected in the 236 families who did not meet HDGC criteria and 1 in the 145 families with incomplete data and/or availability of only first-degree relatives. No CDH1 mutations were found in the 67 families whose members developed intestinal-type gastric cancer, or in the 22 families whose families developed lobular breast cancer. Among patients who fulfilled the HDGC criteria and had pathogenic CDH1 mutations, 36% survived for 1 year and 4% survived for 5 years; among patients who fulfilled the HDGC criteria but did not carry pathogenic CDH1 mutations, 48% survived for 1 year and 13% survived for 5 years (P = .014 for comparative survival analysis between patients with and without a CDH1 mutation). CONCLUSIONS: All individuals with a CDH1 mutation had a personal or family history of diffuse gastric cancer. Patients with gastric cancer and germline CDH1 mutations had shorter survival times than patients who met the HDGC criteria but did not have CDH1 mutations.

A DGGE system for comprehensive mutation screening of BRCA1 and BRCA2: application in a Dutch cancer clinic setting.

Rapid and reliable identification of deleterious changes in the breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 has become one of the major issues in most DNA services laboratories. To rapidly detect all possible changes within the coding and splice site determining sequences of the breast cancer genes, we established a semiautomated denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) mutation scanning system. All exons of both genes are covered by the DGGE scan, comprising 120 amplicons. We use a semiautomated approach, amplifying all individual amplicons with the same PCR program, after which the amplicons are pooled. DGGE is performed using three slightly different gel conditions. Validation was performed using DNA samples with known sequence variants in 107 of the 120 amplicons; all variants were detected. This DGGE mutation scanning, in combination with a PCR test for two Dutch founder deletions in BRCA1 was then applied in 431 families in which 52 deleterious changes and 70 unclassified variants were found. Fifteen unclassified variants were not reported before. The system was easily adopted by five other laboratories, where in another 3,593 families both exons 11 were analyzed by the protein truncation test (PTT) and the remaining exons by DGGE. In total, a deleterious change (nonsense, frameshift, splice-site mutation, or large deletion) was found in 661 families (16.4%), 462 in BRCA1 (11.5%), 197 in BRCA2 (4.9%), and in two index cases a deleterious change in both BRCA1 and BRCA2 was identified. Eleven deleterious changes in BRCA1 and 36 in BRCA2 had not been reported before. In conclusion, this DGGE mutation screening method for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is proven to be highly sensitive and is easy to adopt, which makes screening of large numbers of patients feasible. The results of screening of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in more than 4,000 families present a valuable overview of mutations in the Dutch population.

Toward new strategies to select young endometrial cancer patients for mismatch repair gene mutation analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine the frequency of mismatch repair (MMR) gene germline mutations in endometrial cancer patients who were diagnosed at less than 50 years of age; to relate the presence of mutations to family history, histopathologic data, presence of tumor microsatellite instability (MSI), and immunostaining; and to formulate criteria for genetic testing in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Endometrial cancer patients (N = 58), who were diagnosed at less than 50 years of age, were included and questioned about their family history. Mutation analysis of the MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes was performed (denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and sequence analysis to detect small mutations and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification to detect large deletions or duplications). For MSI analysis, five consensus markers were used, and immunostaining of the three MMR proteins was performed. RESULTS: In five of 22 patients with a positive first-degree family history for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC)-related cancers, pathogenic germline mutations were found (one MLH1, three MSH2, and one MSH6). Four mutation carriers belonged to families fulfilling the revised Amsterdam criteria. No mutations were found in the 35 patients without such family history (P =.006). MSI was detected in 20 of 57 cancers, among which four were from mutation carriers. In 23 of 51 cancers, one or more MMR protein was absent; in all five mutation carriers, immunostaining indicated the involved MMR gene. CONCLUSION: In 23% of the young endometrial cancer patients with at least one first-degree relative with an HNPCC-related cancer, an MMR gene mutation was detected. Therefore, presence of an HNPCC-related cancer in a first-degree relative seems to be an important selection criterion for mutation analysis. Subsequent immunostaining of MMR proteins will point to the gene(s) that should be analyzed.