Background and aims:
Estimates have been made concerning the fraction of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases that meet Amsterdam I criteria but not Amsterdam II criteria. The aim of this study was to determine in a population setting what fraction of CRC cases can be considered familial high-risk, what fraction of these meet Amsterdam I or II criteria, and what fraction of CRC cases overall meet Amsterdam I and II criteria.
The Utah Population Data Base (UPDB), which links Utah genealogies to the Utah Cancer Registry, was used to examine the aims of the study. Familial high-risk was operationally defined as CRC occurring at an age <50 years or as a part of a first-degree relative pair. A subset of Amsterdam positive cancers was tested for microsatellite instability (MSI) to determine what fraction of Amsterdam families was likely to have hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC).
Of the 6,628 CRC cases in the UPDB, 24.5% met the criteria for familial high-risk. Of these, 2.6% met Amsterdam I criteria and 5.5% Amsterdam II. Of total data base CRC cases, 0.8% met Amsterdam I criteria and 2.3% Amsterdam II. In a subset of colon tumors from Amsterdam families, 70% were MSI stable. Conclusions:
Although nearly 25% of CRC cases in our population data base met a simple definition of familial high-risk, only a small fraction of these and a smaller fraction of total CRC cases met Amsterdam I or II criteria. Less than half of a limited set of tumors from Amsterdam families were MSI positive.
Amsterdam criteria familial colon cancer hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer HNPCC Lynch syndrome
Lewis, C, Neuhausen, SL, Daley, D et al 1996Genetic heterogeneity and unmapped genes for colorectal cancerCancer Res56138288PubMedGoogle Scholar
Vasen, HFA, et al. 1999New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative Group on HNPCCGastroenterology116145356PubMedGoogle Scholar
Skolnick, M 1980
The Utah Genealogical Database: A resource for genetic epidemiology
Cairns, JJLyon, JLSkolnick, M eds. Cancer Incidence in Defined Populations.Cold Spring Harbor LaboratoryCold Spring Harbor, NY28596Google Scholar
Wylie, JE, Mineau, GP 2003Biomedical databases: Protecting privacy and promoting researchTrends Biotechnol211136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Vasen, HFA, et al. 1991The International Collaborative Group on Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer (ICG-HNPCC)Dis Colon Rectum344245CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Umar, A, et al. 2004Revised Bethesda guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instabilityJ Natl Cancer Inst962618PubMedGoogle Scholar
Samowitz, WS, Slattery, ML, Kerber, RA 1995Microsatellite instability in human colonic cancer is not a useful clinical indicator of familial colorectal cancerGastroenterology109176571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Boland, CR, et al. 1998A National Cancer Institute Workshop on microsatellite instability for cancer detection and familial predisposition: Development of international criteria for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancerCancer Res58524857PubMedGoogle Scholar