Current Gastroenterology Reports

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 428–438

Familial Colon Cancer Syndromes: an Update of a Rapidly Evolving Field

Large Intestine (B Cash, Section Editor)

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the world. Up to 30 % of CRCs have evidence of a familial component, and about 5 % are thought to be due to well-characterized inherited mutations. This review will focus on recent developments in the understanding of the individual hereditary CRC syndromes, including Lynch syndrome, familial CRC type X, familial adenomatous polyposis, MutYH-associated polyposis, Peutz–Jeghers syndrome, juvenile polyposis syndrome, PTEN hamartomatous syndrome, and serrated polyposis syndrome. Advances within the area of hereditary colon cancer syndromes paint a picture of a rapidly moving, rapidly maturing, and increasingly collaborative field with many opportunities for ongoing research and development.

Keywords

Hereditary colon cancer Lynch syndrome EPCAM Familial colorectal cancer type X Familial adenomatous polypsis MutYH Peutz–Jegher syndrome Juvenile polyposis syndrome PTEN hamartomatous syndrome Serrated polyposis syndrome 

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Center MM, Jemal A, Smith RA, et al. Worldwide variations in colorectal cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(6):366–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Cancer Institute. Colon and Rectal Cancer. Retrieved 12/29/2011 from http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/colon-and-rectal.
  3. 3.
    •• Woods MO, Younghusband HB, Parfrey PS, et al. The genetic basis of colorectal cancer in a population-based incident cohort with a high rate of familial disease. Gut. 2010;59(10):1369–77. This is a systematic clinical and genetic classification of a large consecutive series of colorectal cancers from the Newfoundland Colorectal Cancer Registry, a region with a high prevalence of familial colorectal cancer.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stoffel E, Mukherjee B, Raymond VM, et al. Calculation of risk of colorectal and endometrial cancer among patients with Lynch syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(5):1621–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    •• Bonadona V, Bonaïti B, Olschwang S, et al. French Cancer Genetics Network. Cancer risks associated with germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes in Lynch syndrome. JAMA. 2011;305(22):2304–10. This paper describes the colorectal, endometrial, and ovarian cancer risks in a large (537) number of families with Lynch Syndrome and confirms variations in both risk and age of onset by Lynch genotype.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    •• Hampel H, Frankel WL, Martin E, et al. Screening for the Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). N Engl J Med. 2005;352(18):1851–60. This older paper is important because it illustrates the low level of recognition of Lynch Syndrome in clinical practice in the United States.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    •• Ligtenberg MJ, Kuiper RP, Chan TL, et al. Heritable somatic methylation and inactivation of MSH2 in families with Lynch syndrome due to deletion of the 3′ exons of TACSTD1. Nat Genet. 2009;41:112–7. This is the initial report of EPCAM deletions causing Lynch syndrome due to methylation of MSH2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    •• Rumilla K, Schowalter KV, Lindor NM, et al. Frequency of deletions of EPCAM (TACSTD1) in MSH2-associated Lynch syndrome cases. J Mol Diagn. 2011;13(1):93–9. This collaborative effort reported that of 58 CRCs with MSH2 loss without identifiable mutation, 11 (19 %) had EPCAM deletions leading to MSH2 hypermethylation, 1 had MSH2 hypermethylation without EPCAM deletion, and the cause of the others remains to be discovered.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    •• Kempers MJ, Kuiper RP, Ockeloen CW, et al. Risk of colorectal and endometrial cancers in EPCAM deletion-positive Lynch syndrome: a cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(1):49–55. This study evaluated cancer prevalence in 194 EPCAM deletion carriers with 16 different deletions and found that endometrial cancer risk was substantially lower in this group than in MMR mutation carriers. In EPCAM deletion carriers, the endometrial cancer risk seemed to be confined to those with deletions that were close to or extended into the MSH2 promoter.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lynch HT, Riegert-Johnson DL, Snyder C, et al. Lynch syndrome-associated extracolonic tumors are rare in two extended families with the same EPCAM deletion. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106(10):1829–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hampel H, de la Chapelle A. The search for unaffected individuals with Lynch syndrome: do the ends justify the means? Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4(1):1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jenkins MA, Hayashi S, O’Shea AM, et al. Colon Cancer Family Registry. Pathology features in Bethesda guidelines predict colorectal cancer microsatellite instability: a population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2007;133(1):48–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pérez-Carbonell L, Ruiz-Ponte C, et al. Comparison between universal molecular screening for Lynch syndrome and revised Bethesda guidelines in a large population-based cohort of patients with colorectal cancer. Gut. 2012;61(6):865–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shia J, Tang LH, Vakiani E, et al. Immunohistochemistry as first-line screening for detecting colorectal cancer patients at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: a 2-antibody panel may be as predictive as a 4-antibody panel. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(11):1639–45. Erratum in: Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34(3):432.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hall G, Clarkson A, Shi A, et al. Immunohistochemistry for PMS2 and MSH6 alone can replace a four antibody panel for mismatch repair deficiency screening in colorectal adenocarcinoma. Pathology. 2010;42(5):409–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    •• Kastrinos F, Steyerberg EW, Mercado R, et al. The PREMM(1,2,6) model predicts risk of MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 germline mutations based on cancer history. Gastroenterology. 2011;140(1):73–81. This paper describes and validates a predictive model that adds prediction of MSH6 mutation risk to the previous PREMM 1,2 model.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khan O, Blanco A, Conrad P, et al. Performance of Lynch syndrome predictive models in a multi-center US referral population. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106(10):1822–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dinh TA, Rosner BI, Atwood JC, et al. Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of primary genetic screening for Lynch syndrome in the general population. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4(1):9–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genet Med. 2009;11(1):35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    •• Ladabaum U, Wang G, Terdiman J, et al. Strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(2):69–79. This group developed a Markov model to estimate the relative cost effectiveness of a variety of molecular and clinical predictive models for identification of Lynch syndrome and concluded that universal molecular testing of CRCs with immunohistochemistry (IHC) followed by BRAF mutation analysis of those with MLH1 loss was, overall, the most cost-effective approach, although predictive modeling with MMR Pro followed by IHC was estimated to be almost as effective at less cost.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kwon JS, Scott JL, Gilks CB, et al. Testing women with endometrial cancer to detect Lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(16):2247–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Limburg PJ, Harmsen WS, Chen HH, et al. Prevalence of alterations in DNA mismatch repair genes in patients with young-onset colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:497–502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Engel C, Rahner N, Schulmann K, et al. Efficacy of annual colonoscopic surveillance in individuals with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8(2):174–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    •• Burn J, Gerdes AM, Macrae F, et al. Long-term effect of aspirin on cancer risk in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer: an analysis from the CAPP2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9809):2081–7. This longer term follow-up of a controlled trial of aspirin in Lynch gene carriers raised the possibility of a decrease in CRC risk in those who had been randomized to aspirin. This is the first suggestion of the possibility of effective chemoprevention in this syndrome.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Parry S, Win AK, Parry B, et al. Metachronous colorectal cancer risk for mismatch repair gene mutation carriers: the advantage of more extensive colon surgery. Gut. 2011;60(7):950–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lindor NM, Rabe K, Petersen GM, et al. Lower cancer incidence in Amsterdam-I criteria families without mismatch repair deficiency: familial colorectal cancer type X. JAMA. 2005;293(16):1979–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    •• Lindor NM. Familial colorectal cancer type X: the other half of hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer syndrome. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2009;18(4):637–45. A clearly written review of this recently described clinical syndrome.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Klarskov L, Holck S, Bernstein I, et al. Hereditary colorectal cancer diagnostics: morphological features of familial colorectal cancer type X versus Lynch syndrome. J Clin Pathol. 2012.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Koh PK, Kalady M, Skacel M, et al. Familial colorectal cancer type X: polyp burden and cancer risk stratification via a family history score. ANZ J Surg. 2011;81(7–8):537–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Francisco I, Albuquerque C, Lage P, et al. Familial colorectal cancer type X syndrome: two distinct molecular entities? Fam Cancer. 2011;10(4):623–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jasperson KW, Tuohy TM, Neklason DW, et al. Hereditary and familial colon cancer. Gastroenterology. 2010;138(6):2044–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nieuwenhuis MH, Lefevre JH, Bülow S, et al. Family history, surgery, and APC mutation are risk factors for desmoid tumors in familial adenomatous polyposis: an international cohort study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(10):1229–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leiden Open Variation Database. InSiGHT (International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumours), Leiden University Medical Center, from: http://chromium.liacs.nl/LOVD2/colon_cancer/. Accessed on January 17, 2012.
  34. 34.
    • Newton K, Mallinson E, Bowen J, et al. Genotype-phenotype correlation in colorectalpolyposis. Clin Genet. 2012;81(6):521–31. This paper extends previous genotype/phenotype associations in FAP, showing that patients with mutations near the mutation cluster region have an earlier age of onset of CRC and a poorer survival than those with mutations in other regions of the APC gene.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Heinen CD. Genotype to phenotype: analyzing the effects of inherited mutations in colorectal cancer families. Mutat Res. 2010;693:32–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. American Cancer Society Colorectal Cancer Advisory Group; US Multi-Society Task Force; American College of Radiology Colon Cancer Committee. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology. 2008;134(5):1570–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kim B, Giardiello FM. Chemoprevention in familial adenomatous polyposis. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2011;25:607–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Burn J, Bishop DT, Chapman PD, et al. International CAPP consortium. A randomized placebo-controlled prevention trial of aspirin and/or resistant starch in young people with familial adenomatous polyposis. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4(5):655–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Parc Y, Mabrut JY, Shields C, et al. Surgical management of the duodenal manifestations of familial adenomatous polyposis. Br J Surg. 2011;98(4):480–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gibbons DC, Sinha A, Phillips RKS, et al. Colorectal cancer: no longer the issue in familial adenomatous polyposis? Fam Cancer. 2011;10:11–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Terdiman JP. MYH-associated disease: attenuated adenomatous polyposis of the colon is only part of the story. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(6):1883–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Boparai KS, Dekker E, Van Eeden S, et al. Hyperplastic polyps and sessile serrated adenomas as a phenotypic expression of MYH-associated polyposis. Gastroenterology. 2008;135(6):2014–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cleary SP, Cotterchio M, Jenkins MA, et al. Germline MutY human homologue mutations and colorectal cancer: a multisite case-control study. Gastroenterology. 2009;136(4):1251–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    •• Nielsen M, van Steenbergen LN, Jones N, et al. Survival of MUTYH-associated polyposis patients with colorectal cancer and matched control colorectal cancer patients. J Nat Cancer Inst. 2010;102(22):1724–30. This paper reported that overall survival of 157 patients with MUTYH-associated CRCs was better than that in matched controls (5 year survival, 78 % vs. 63 %; HR for death, 0.48).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    •• Theodoratou E, Campbell H, Tenesa A, et al. A large-scale meta-analysis to refine colorectal cancer risk estimates associated with MUTYH variants. Br J Cancer. 2010;103(12):1875–84. This is an extensive meta-analysis that reports a marked increased CRC risk in biallelic MUTYH mutation carriers (OR, 10.9) and a borderline significant increase in mono-allelic mutation carriers (OR, 1.16).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vogt S, Jones N, Christian D, et al. Expanded extracolonic tumor spectrum in MUTYH-associated polyposis. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(6):1976–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Beggs AD, Latchford AR, Vasen HF, et al. Peutz-Jeghers syndrome: a systematic review and recommendations for management. Gut. 2010;59(7):975–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bouraoui S, Azouz H, Kechrid H, et al. [Peutz Jeghers’ syndrome with malignant development in a hamartomatous polyp: report of one case and review of the literature] (In French). Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2008;32:250e4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hearle N, Schumacher V, Menko FH, et al. Frequency and spectrum of cancers in the Peutz Jeghers syndrome. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:3209e15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    •• van Lier MG, Westerman AM, Wagner A, et al. High cancer risk and increased mortality in patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Gut. 2011;60(2):141–7. This report of 133 Dutch PJS patients from 54 families confirms the high overall cancer risk in PJS, as compared with the general population (9-fold), and found a markedly higher cancer risk in women than men (20-fold vs. 5-fold above general population). About half of the cancers occurred in the GI tract.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    van Lier MG, Mathus-Vliegen EM, et al. High cumulative risk of intussusception in patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome: time to update surveillance guidelines? Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106(5):940–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    You YN, Wolff BG, Boardman LA, et al. Peutz-Jeghers syndrome: a study of long-term surgical morbidity and causes of mortality. Fam Cancer. 2010;9(4):609–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    van Hattem WA, Brosens LA, Marks SY, et al. Increased cyclooxygenase-2 expression in juvenile polyposis syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:93–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    •• Heald B, Mester J, Rybicki L, et al. Frequent gastrointestinal polyps and colorectal adenocarcinomas in a prospective series of PTEN mutation carriers. Gastroenterology. 2010;139(6):1927–33. This paper described the wide spectrum of polyp histologies found in 67 PTEN mutation carriers undergoing colonoscopy, including, in order of frequency, hyperplastic polyps, hamartomatomas, ganglioneuromas, adenomas, and inflammatory polyps.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    •• Tan MH, Mester JL, Ngeow J, et al. Lifetime cancer risks in individuals with Germline PTEN mutations. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(2):400–7. This report of cancer risk in 368 PTEN mutation carriers found substantial increases in risk of cancers of the colon and rectum (10-fold), breast (20-fold), thyroid (50-fold), endometrium (40-fold), kidney (30-fold), and melanoma (8-fold).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hobert JA, Eng C. PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome: an overview. Genet Med. 2009;11(10):687–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tan MH, Mester J, Peterson C, et al. A clinical scoring system for selection of patients for PTEN mutation testing is proposed on the basis of a prospective study of 3042 probands. Am J Hum Genet. 2011;88(1):42–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    •• Boparai KS, Mathus-Vliegen EM, et al. Increased colorectal cancer risk during follow-up in patients with hyperplastic polyposis syndrome: a multicentre cohort study. Gut. 2010;59:1094–100. These authors collated the endoscopic and pathologic findings in 77 individuals who met the clinical criteria for serrated polyposis syndrome and found that 35 % had CRC (28 % at initial colonoscopy) and that an increasing number of serrated polyps were significantly associated with CRC presence.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Snover D, Ahnen DJ, Burt RW, et al. Serrated polyps of the colon and rectum and serrated (“hyperplastic”) polyposis. In: Bozman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, et al., editors. WHO classification of tumours. Pathology and genetics. Tumours of the digestive system. 4th ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2010.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Orlowska J, Kiedrowski M, Kaminski FM, et al. Hyperplastic polyposis syndrome in asymptomatic patients: the results from the colorectal-cancer screening program. Virchows Arch. 2009;455 Suppl 1:S47.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jass JR. Classification of colorectal cancer based on correlation of clinical, morphological and molecular features. Histopathology. 2007;50(1):113–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    •• Kalady MF, Jarrar A, Leach B, et al. Defining phenotypes and cancer risk in hyperplastic polyposis syndrome. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(2):164–70. This report describes the substantial variability in the phenotypes that occur in individuals who meet the current clinical criteria for serrated polyposis syndrome.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Young J, Jass JR. The case for a genetic predisposition to serrated neoplasia in the colorectum: hypothesis and review of the literature. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(10):1778–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Colorado School of MedicineAuroraUSA
  2. 2.Denver Department of Veterans Affairs Medical CenterUniversity of Colorado School of MedicineDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations