Evaluation of yield and experiences of age-related molecular investigation for heritable and nonheritable causes of mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer to identify Lynch syndrome.

Universal mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) testing of colorectal cancer (CRC) is promoted as routine diagnostics to prescreen for Lynch syndrome. We evaluated the yield and experience of age-related molecular investigation for heritable and nonheritable causes of dMMR in CRC below age 70 to identify Lynch Syndrome. In a prospective cohort of 3602 newly diagnosed CRCs below age 70 from 19 hospitals, dMMR, MLH1 promoter hypermethylation, germline MMR gene and somatic MMR gene testing was assessed in daily practice. Yield was evaluated using data from the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA) and two regional genetic centers. Experiences of clinicians were evaluated through questionnaires. Participating clinicians were overwhelmingly positive about the clinical workflow. Pathologists routinely applied dMMR-testing in 84% CRCs and determined 10% was dMMR, largely due to somatic MLH1 hypermethylation (66%). Of those, 69% with dMMR CRC below age 70 without hypermethylation were referred for genetic testing, of which 55% was due to Lynch syndrome (hereditary) and 43% to somatic biallelic pathogenic MMR (nonhereditary). The prevalence of Lynch syndrome was 18% in CRC < 40, 1.7% in CRC age 40-64 and 0.7% in CRC age 65-69. Age 65-69 represents most cases with dMMR, in which dMMR due to somatic causes (13%) is 20 times more prevalent than Lynch syndrome. In conclusion, up to age 65 routine diagnostics of (non-)heritable causes of dMMR CRCs effectively identifies Lynch syndrome and reduces Lynch-like diagnoses. Above age 64, the effort to detect one Lynch syndrome patient in dMMR CRC is high and germline testing rarely needed.

Universal Tumor DNA BRCA1/2 Testing of Ovarian Cancer: Prescreening PARPi Treatment and Genetic Predisposition.

BACKGROUND: Women with epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) have a higher chance to benefit from poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) therapy if their tumor has a somatic or hereditary BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant. Current guidelines advise BRCA1/2 genetic predisposition testing for all OC patients, though this does not detect somatic variants. We assessed the feasibility of a workflow for universal tumor DNA BRCA1/2 testing of all newly diagnosed OC patients as a prescreen for PARPi treatment and cancer predisposition testing. METHODS: Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue was obtained from OC patients in seven hospitals immediately after diagnosis or primary surgery. DNA was extracted, and universal tumor BRCA1/2 testing was then performed in a single site. Diagnostic yield, uptake, referral rates for genetic predisposition testing, and experiences of patients and gynecologists were evaluated. RESULTS: Tumor BRCA1/2 testing was performed for 315 (77.6%) of the 406 eligible OC samples, of which 305 (96.8%) were successful. In 51 of these patients, pathogenic variants were detected (16.7%). Most patients (88.2%) went on to have a genetic predisposition test. BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants were shown to be hereditary in 56.8% and somatic in 43.2% of patients. Participating gynecologists and patients were overwhelmingly positive about the workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Universal tumor BRCA1/2 testing in all newly diagnosed OC patients is feasible, effective, and appreciated by patients and gynecologists. Because many variants cannot be detected in DNA from blood, testing tumor DNA as the first step can double the identification rate of patients who stand to benefit most from PARP inhibitors.

Interpretation of immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair proteins is only reliable in a specialized setting.

We examined the validity of immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair (MMR) proteins in colorectal cancer specimens to identify patients at risk for Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) and patients with sporadic microsatellite instable colorectal cancer. This was assessed by observer agreement for and accuracy of interpretation of immunohistochemistry. Seven pathologists from 5 different pathology laboratories evaluated 100 molecularly defined colorectal cancers stained for MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6. Two of the pathologists were experienced in interpretation of immunohistochemistry for MMR proteins. After evaluation of a subset of 20 cases, a discussion meeting was organized, after which pathologists evaluated all 100 cases. Staining patterns were interpreted as aberrant, normal, or indefinite. In 82% of tumors, 5 or more pathologists reached the same interpretation, which was considered the consensus diagnosis. Consensus was reached slightly less frequently in microsatellite instable than in stable tumors, and interobserver variation was moderate to substantial (kappa: 0.49-0.79). More microsatellite instable tumors showed an indefinite staining pattern compared with microsatellite stable tumors. Three out of 7 pathologists, including the 2 experienced pathologists, did not miss a microsatellite instable tumor. Each pathologist found at least 1 tumor with an aberrant staining pattern, whereas consensus was a normal staining pattern and the tumor was microsatellite stable. We conclude that, if restricted to experienced pathologists, immunohistochemistry is a valid tool to identify patients at risk for Lynch syndrome and patients with sporadic microsatellite instable colorectal cancer. An indefinite or aberrant staining result has to be followed by molecular microsatellite instability analysis to confirm the presence of a defective DNA MMR system.

INK4-ARF and p53 mutations in metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: case report and archival study on the use of Ink4a-ARF and p53 mutation analysis in identification of the corresponding primary tumor.

So far, histopathologic, immunohistochemical and molecular properties of metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs) are relatively unexplored. In patients with multiple CSCCs, as for instance renal transplant recipients (RTRs), it might prove difficult to identify the primary tumor responsible for metastasis. We report a case of an RTR with multiple CSCCs, one of which metastasized. By using p53 and INK4a-ARF mutation analysis, we identified the responsible primary tumor due to an identical mutation in exon 2 of the INK4a-ARF locus. Archival study yielded 14 cases of metastatic CSCC (present case included). In only 8 of 14 metastases, DNA quality was sufficient to perform PCR reactions. In 7 of 8 metastases, either an INK4a-ARF (6 of 8 cases) and/or p53 (3 of 8 cases) mutation was present. In 6 of 7 cases, the corresponding primary could be identified by an identical mutation in p53 and/or INK4a-ARF. In conclusion, molecular analysis using a combination of p53 and INK4a-ARF mutation analysis can identify the corresponding primary skin tumor in case of CSCC metastases in the majority of cases. This is facilitated by the high frequency of these mutations in metastatic CSCC when compared with frequency spectra reported in the literature in primary CSCCs. The major limitation was formed by insufficient DNA quality in archival tissue.