Abstract
Overlapping phenotypes between different hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndromes together with a growing demand for cancer genetic testing and improved sequencing technology call for adjusted patient selection and adapted diagnostic routines. Here we present a retrospective evaluation of family history of cancer, laboratory diagnostic procedure, and outcome for 372 patients tested for Lynch syndrome (LS), i.e., the single most common hereditary cause of CRC. Based on number of affected family members and age at cancer diagnosis in families with genetically confirmed LS, we developed local patient selection criteria for a simplified one-step gene panel mutation screening strategy targeting also less common Mendelian CRC syndromes. Pros and cons of this strategy are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
It is estimated that Mendelian predisposition to cancer is responsible for 5–10% of all colorectal cancers (CRC) (Stoffel and Boland 2015). Lynch syndrome (LS), the single most common inherited cause of CRC, shows an autosomal dominant pattern of inheritance due to germline mutations in either of the genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, or EPCAM which eventually results in the disruption of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) in LS tumor cells (for reviews, see Kohlmann and Gruber 2004, Lynch et al. 2015). There are several other less common hereditary conditions that confer increased risk for CRC, mainly familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP or APC-associated polyposis caused by mutations in the APC gene), MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP; mutations in MUTYH), juvenile polyposis syndrome (JPS; BMPR1A, SMAD4), PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (PHTS; PTEN), Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS; STK11), and polymerase proofreading-associated polyposis (PPAP; POLE and POLD1) (for review, see Valle 2017).
In LS there is an increased risk for cancers other than CRC predominantly in the endometrium and to a lesser extent in ovaries, stomach, small bowel, urinary tract, brain, hepatobiliary tract, and skin (Kohlmann and Gruber 2004; Lynch et al. 2015; Møller et al. 2018). An affected family branch usually contains several individuals in subsequent generations with early onset LS spectrum tumors. Yet, as for all hereditary cancer syndromes the expected pattern of inheritance and clinical phenotype is sometimes obscured by limited family history data and/or incomplete disease penetrance in mutation carriers. Occasionally, the different CRC predisposition syndromes are confused due to overlapping clinical presentation (Jo et al. 2005; Aretz 2010; Spier et al. 2015; Rohlin et al. 2017).
A definitive diagnosis of LS is often obtained through a step-wise laboratory investigation including MMR functional analysis revealing DNA microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or immunohistochemical (IHC) lack of MMR protein expression in tumor tissue (often lack of both MLH1 and PMS2 or MSH2 and MSH6 as they form heterodimers) and the subsequent detection of a constitutional mutation, i.e., a pathogenic sequence variant, in any of the indicated MMR genes. This diagnostic strategy is complicated by the fact that MSI (or IHC lack of MLH1 and PMS2) is also seen in approximately 15% of sporadic CRC due to somatic biallelic methylation of the MLH1 promoter (Aaltonen et al. 1993; Boland et al. 1998; Cunningham et al. 2001). MMR-deficiency in rectal cancer, however, is rare and should be considered an indicator of LS (Nilbert et al. 1999; de Rosa et al. 2016). MLH1/PMS2-deficiency of somatic origin can be distinguished by concomitant mutation in BRAF, frequently at codon 600 (V600E), which rarely occurs in LS-associated CRC. Yet, since 20–50% of CRC with somatic MLH1-deficiency do not display the BRAF V600E mutation, its value in the triage of patients for mutation screening is limited (Parsons et al. 2012), and MLH1 hypermethylation-specific assays therefore need to be considered.
During the past two decades, growing knowledge and awareness about LS and other hereditary causes of CRC together with improved DNA sequencing technology have been paralleled by an increased number of referrals for genetic evaluation. For decision-making purposes to meet this demand, we reviewed previous patient referrals to our clinical genetics unit that led to any type of laboratory investigation regarding LS. We herein present the data obtained including family history of cancer and laboratory results and costs. Based on this outcome we developed local patient selection criteria for an alternative one-step laboratory diagnostic approach in which a panel of genes is screened for pathogenic mutations covering all major hereditary CRC syndromes.
Materials and methods
Patients and clinical data
The study was performed as part of a quality assessment project at the Department of Clinical Genetics in Lund, a unit that serves a population of approximately 1.5 million inhabitants in the southern health care region in Sweden. Local guidelines for referral of patients with early onset CRC and/or positive family history were available for health care providers (Supplementary Material 1). All referrals, i.e., 412 cases, subjected to any type of laboratory investigation regarding LS during the period of 1996–2012 were included in the study. Informed written consent for cancer genetic investigation was collected from each proband as part of the clinical routine. Forty cases were excluded from the study due to lack of data concerning clinical information and family history of cancer (nine cases), lack of tissue from a symptomatic individual (seven cases), or because a relative was already enrolled (24 cases). This resulted in a cohort of 372 adult probands. The types of laboratory investigations performed included MMR functional analyses in tumor tissue with MSI testing and/or IHC staining for any of the MMR proteins MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6, targeted analysis of the BRAF V600E mutation in tumor tissue DNA (introduced in 2009), and mutation screening of one or several of the MMR genes MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6 in leukocyte DNA (sole analysis in four patients). Laboratory results, pedigrees, and data concerning tumor diagnoses in the family were retrieved from the proband’s medical record. For each pedigree, the cluster of first-degree relatives (CFDR) with the largest number of LS-associated tumors was determined, taking into account colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, gastric, small bowel, and upper urinary tract cancers. Metachronous and synchronous LS-associated tumors were counted as independent tumor cases. CFDR was defined as at least one affected individual within a single family branch. The lowest age at diagnosis (LAD) was determined for each CFDR, however, taking into account also any affected second-degree relatives in the same family branch.
Statistical methods
The nonparametric Mann-Whitney-U test was used to test for differences in continuous variables. P-values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant (two-tailed testing). All statistical analyses were performed using R version 3.2.2 (R Core Team 2015, Vienna, Austria, https://www.R-project.org/), and plots were constructed using the base and beeswarm version 0.2.1 (Aron Eklund 2015, http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=beeswarm) packages.
Generating criteria for direct gene panel mutation screening
A scatter plot with the number of tumors in each CFDR and LAD was generated including all patients subjected to MMR gene mutation screening; CFDR harboring a pathogenic sequence variant or a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) were indicated (Fig. 1; for description and classification of variants, see Supplementary Material 2). This scatter plot was used to define three criteria, each allowing for direct mutation screening in a simulated diagnostic approach: (a) CFDR with one tumor and LAD < 40 years, (b) CFDR with ≥ 2 tumors and LAD < 50 years, and (c) CFDR with ≥ 3 tumors and LAD < 60 years. These chosen criteria would allow the identification of all but one of the families diagnosed with LS in our cohort (Fig. 1). In addition, to comply with Swedish national guidelines which promote MMR functional testing for all patients diagnosed with CRC < 50 years, cases with a single tumor (CFDR = 1) and LAD in the range of 40–49 years would initially be selected for MMR functional analysis; cases with MSI and/or MMR protein deficiency would subsequently be offered germline MMR gene mutation screening.
Number of LS-associated tumors in clusters of first-degree relatives (CFDR), lowest age at diagnosis (LAD), and laboratory outcome for patients subjected to MMR gene mutation screening. Each data point represents a CFDR. VUS: variant of uncertain significance. Proposed cutoff for direct gene panel mutation screening is indicated (dashed line)
Calculation of costs
Laboratory costs were charged by external laboratories affiliated to Lund University Hospital and included extraction of DNA from blood samples, retrieval of paraffin-embedded tumor tissue from archives, laboratory analysis, data interpretation, and data reporting. Calculation of costs: all costs were converted to the levels charged in 2012 and converted from Swedish krona to euro (€). MMR functional analysis, 356 €; targeted BRAF V600E analysis, 640 €; germline Sanger sequencing of 1 MMR gene, 556 €; 2 genes, 1022 €; 3 genes,: 1422 €; 4 genes, 1689 €; massively parallel (gene panel) sequencing including MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, EPCAM, APC, MUTYH, BMPR1A, SMAD4, PTEN, STK11, POLE, and POLD1, 1648 €.
Results
Outcome of LS standard laboratory process
The entire cohort is shown graphically with number of tumors in CFDR and LAD in Fig. 2. The mean number of tumors in CFDR in the cohort was 2.5 and mean LAD was 47. Except for the initial study period during which number of tumors in CFDR tended to be larger, values for CFDR and LAD seemed stable over time (Supplementary Material 3a and 3b, respectively). Of the 372 patients included in the cohort, 368 patients were investigated with MMR functional analyses of which 92 patients (25%) were considered to have an MMR deficient tumor (Fig. 3a). Compared to CFDR with normal MMR function, CFDR with MMR deficiency had larger numbers of tumors (P = 0.00008; Fig. 3b) as well as lower LAD (P = 0.00002; Fig. 3c). A total of 114 patients were subjected to MMR gene mutation screening of which 48 (42%) had an LS-associated mutation (13% of the entire cohort) and another seven individuals had a VUS (Fig. 1). Almost all (47/48) patients with mutation had tumors that displayed MMR functional deficiency (one patient not investigated; Supplementary Material 2). The proportion of identified mutations was largest in MSH2 (46%), followed by MLH1 (31%), MSH6 (21%), and PMS2 (2%) (Table 1). Except for the initial study period during which the number of tumors in CFDR with mutation tended to be larger, values for CFDR and LAD seemed stable over time (Supplementary Material 3c and 3d, respectively).
Number of LS-associated tumors in clusters of first-degree relatives (CFDR) and lowest age at diagnosis (LAD), and outcome in patients subjected to MMR functional analysis. Each data point represents a CFDR. Outcome of MMR functional analysis (n = 368); proposed cutoff for direct gene panel testing is indicated (dashed line) (a). Relative frequency bar graphs and notched box plots visualizing the relationship between MMR functional status and number of tumors in CFDR (b) or LAD (c), respectively
Applying criteria for direct gene panel testing
If applied to our cohort, the criteria for direct gene panel testing would target 237 patients of which 31 represented a CFDR with a single tumor and LAD below 40 years, 77 a CFDR with two tumors and LAD below 50 years, and 129 a CFDR with three or more tumors and LAD below 60 years (Fig. 2). In addition, 40 patients represented a CFDR with a single tumor and had an LAD within the range of 40–49 years and would thus initially be offered MMR functional analysis only (Fig. 2); as six of these patients had an MMR deficient tumor they would subsequently be offered mutation screening accordingly (Fig. 3a).
Estimation of total costs
The total cost for our LS standard laboratory process during 1996–2012 was 248,482 € (Table 2). The simulated total cost for direct gene panel testing and MMR functional analyses with subsequent restricted mutation screening in selected cases would be 410,948 €, i.e., a cost exceeding that of our LS standard laboratory process by approximately 65% (Table 2).
Discussion
In this retrospective study, we have evaluated family history of cancer, diagnostic procedure and outcome, and laboratory costs in a cohort of patients referred for laboratory testing regarding LS. The large fraction of cases with MMR deficiency in our cohort compared to that reported in unselected CRC (25% versus 15%; Aaltonen et al. 1993, Boland et al. 1998, Cunningham et al. 2001, Bapat et al. 2009) apparently reflects an enrichment of LS in our cohort since background levels are seen when LS cases are removed (12%). The accumulation (i.e., > 15%) of MMR deficiency reported in CRC diagnosed at age ≥ 60 years due to somatic MLH1 promoter methylation (Bapat et al. 2009) was not observed in our cohort (< 7%; 3/45 cases), the discrepancy which possibly reflects the few elderly in our study. Indeed, our local guidelines encourage referrals with early onset CRC and/or positive family history (Supplementary Material 1). However, as already observed in other cohorts with early onset or familial CRC (Bapat et al. 2009; Karlitz et al. 2015), we found a positive correlation between MMR deficiency and number of LS-associated tumors as well as low LAD. Naturally, MMR deficiency, familial aggregation, and early onset disease will show significant association with LS because they are factors in determining the pathogenicity of LS gene variants, i.e., in variant classification according to The International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumors (InSiGHT) 5-tiered scheme (Thompson et al. 2014).
Although the prevalence of LS in the Swedish population is yet to be determined, the fraction of LS detected in our cohort (13%) is well above the prevalence of 2–3% reported in unselected CRC in other Western societies (Cunningham et al. 2001; Yurgelun et al. 2017). Again, as our local guidelines support referrals of patients with positive family history and/or low age at diagnosis, the high frequency of LS in our cohort most likely reflects patient selection bias. Such bias is further supported by the mean LAD (47 years) in our cohort which is lower than that reported by The National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden (2018) for any of the tumor types considered in the present study.
Among the 114 patients that were screened for MMR mutations in our cohort, 42% had an LS-associated mutation. Slightly higher values (53–62%) have been obtained in other Scandinavian cohorts (Lagerstedt Robinson et al. 2007; Sjursen et al. 2010). The distribution of mutations in the MMR genes in our cohort is largely similar to that recently reported in a Swedish national LS cohort, i.e., mutations in MLH1 and MSH2 predominate (Lagerstedt-Robinson et al. 2016).
In the present study, the chosen criteria for direct gene panel testing would target all but one of the families diagnosed with LS; this family harbors a mutation in MSH6 and its number of LS-associated tumors (two tumors) and LAD (51 years) is the lowest and highest, respectively, among all ten families with MSH6 mutation in our cohort. The finding is also in agreement with reports of attenuated disease penetrance and later onset of disease in MSH6 (and PMS2) mutation carriers (Plaschke et al. 2004; Senter et al. 2008; Baglietto et al. 2010; Sjursen et al. 2010; Møller et al. 2018). The observed lower mean number of tumors in CFDR and higher mean LAD in families with MSH6 or PMS2 mutation in our cohort are, however, not statistically significant (data not shown). Nevertheless, caution should be warranted when using family history of tumors as sole selection criterion in hereditary CRC diagnostics. In this context, it should also be emphasized that the pattern of inheritance for MAP is autosomal recessive and that individuals with MAP-related CRC thus often have very few or no affected relatives. Single cases of CRC diagnosed ≥ 40 years of age caused by MAP would in fact escape detection using our proposed criteria for direct gene panel testing, again limiting the usefulness of family history of tumors alone when selecting patients for mutation screening.
In theory, if applied, the proposed criteria for direct gene panel testing would have selected a large subgroup of our cohort for molecular genetic testing, thereby potentially identifying additional cases with hereditary CRC other than LS. In practice, emerging evidence show that gene panel-based screening identifies a broad set of hereditary CRC syndromes (Chubb et al. 2015; Hansen et al. 2017; Rohlin et al. 2017; Stoffel et al. 2018). In particular, Chubb and coworkers (2015) screened a cohort of 626 patients with suspected hereditary predisposition to CRC (CFDR ≥ 2, LAD ≤ 55) with a gene panel that contained MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, APC, MUTYH, BMPR1A, SMAD4, POLE, and POLD1 with a mutation carrier yield of 10.9% for LS and, notably, 3.3% for the remaining syndromes. In the report by Stoffel and coworkers (2018) gathering 430 patients diagnosed with CRC before 50 years of age, the corresponding yield was 10.7% for LS and 4.6% for known non-LS hereditary CRC conditions (i.e., mutations in APC, MUTYH, and SMAD4).
The calculated laboratory cost for direct gene panel testing in our study was 65% higher than that for the LS standard laboratory process. Considering the continued decline in sequencing costs during the last decade, the cost for gene panel testing is likely to decrease. We have not evaluated the potential impact of direct gene panel testing on associated administrative aspects (personnel costs, turn-around time) and clinical procedures, and its cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit in the context of a whole hereditary colorectal cancer care package. A recent assessment of cost-utility to identify LS among cases with early onset CRC indicate that most laboratory strategies, including direct mutation testing, are cost-effective versus no testing (Snowsill et al. 2015).
Our proposed selection criteria for direct gene panel testing, now in use as guidelines at our department, were tailored in retrospect from our 1996–2012 cohort and, thus, should not be introduced in other clinical settings without independent validation. We acknowledge the continued need of MMR functional analyses, e.g., in cases with a VUS in an MMR gene, in cases with no mutation identified but a strong family history of LS-associated tumors, and in cases where tumor tissue is the only specimen available. In addition, conceivably, the anticipated introduction of universal tumor tissue screening for BRAF-mutations and MMR protein expression for treatment stratification purposes (Cohen et al. 2017) will alter current patient referral patterns, in particular for LS. Here, continued interdisciplinary coordination is a prerequisite to maintain diagnostic routines that allow identification of patients with constitutional predisposition for CRC.
References
Aaltonen LA, Peltomäki P, Leach FS, Sistonen P, Pylkkänen L, Mecklin JP, Järvinen H, Powell SM, Jen J, Hamilton SR et al (1993) Clues to the pathogenesis of familial colorectal cancer. Science 260(5109):812–816
Aretz S (2010) The differential diagnosis and surveillance of hereditary gastrointestinal polyposis syndromes. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107(10):163–173
Baglietto L, Lindor NM, Dowty JG, White DM, Wagner A, Gomez Garcia EB, Vriends AH, G. Dutch Lynch Syndrome Study, Cartwright NR, Barnetson RA, Farrington SM, Tenesa A, Hampel H, Buchanan D, Arnold S, Young J, Walsh MD, Jass J, Macrae F, Antill Y, Winship IM, Giles GG, Goldblatt J, Parry S, Suthers G, Leggett B, Butz M, Aronson M, Poynter JN, Baron JA, Le Marchand L, Haile R, Gallinger S, Hopper JL, Potter J, de la Chapelle A, Vasen HF, Dunlop MG, Thibodeau SN, Jenkins MA (2010) Risks of lynch syndrome cancers for MSH6 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(3):193–201
Bapat B, Lindor NM, Baron J, Siegmund K, Li L, Zheng Y, Haile R, Gallinger S, Jass JR, Young JP, Cotterchio M, Jenkins M, Grove J, Casey G, Thibodeau SN, Bishop DT, Hopper JL, Ahnen D, Newcomb PA, Le Marchand L, Potter JD, Seminara D, R. Colon Cancer Family (2009) The association of tumor microsatellite instability phenotype with family history of colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 18(3):967–975
Boland CR, Thibodeau SN, Hamilton SR, Sidransky D, Eshleman JR, Burt RW, Meltzer SJ, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Fodde R, Ranzani GN, Srivastava S (1998) A 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 cancer. Cancer Res 58(22):5248–5257
Chubb D, Broderick P, Frampton M, Kinnersley B, Sherborne A, Penegar S, Lloyd A, Ma YP, Dobbins SE, Houlston RS (2015) Genetic diagnosis of high-penetrance susceptibility for colorectal cancer (CRC) is achievable for a high proportion of familial CRC by exome sequencing. J Clin Oncol 33(5):426–432
Cohen R, Cervera P, Svrcek M, Pellat A, Dreyer C, de Gramont A, Andre T (2017) BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer: what is the optimal strategy for treatment? Curr Treat Options in Oncol 18(2):9
Cunningham JM, Kim CY, Christensen ER, Tester DJ, Parc Y, Burgart LJ, Halling KC, McDonnell SK, Schaid DJ, Walsh Vockley C, Kubly V, Nelson H, Michels VV, Thibodeau SN (2001) The frequency of hereditary defective mismatch repair in a prospective series of unselected colorectal carcinomas. Am J Hum Genet 69(4):780–790
de Rosa N, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Chang GJ, Veerapong J, Borras E, Krishnan S, Bednarski B, Messick CA, Skibber JM, Feig BW, Lynch PM, Vilar E, You YN (2016) DNA mismatch repair deficiency in rectal cancer: benchmarking its impact on prognosis, neoadjuvant response prediction, and clinical cancer genetics. J Clin Oncol 34(25):3039–3046
Hansen MF, Johansen J, Sylvander AE, Bjørnevoll I, Talseth-Palmer BA, Lavik LAS, Xavier A, Engebretsen LF, Scott RJ, Drabløs F, Sjursen W (2017) Use of multigene-panel identifies pathogenic variants in several CRC-predisposing genes in patients previously tested for lynch syndrome. Clin Genet 92(4):405–414
Jo WS, Bandipalliam P, Shannon KM, Niendorf KB, Chan-Smutko G, Hur C, Syngal S, Chung DC (2005) Correlation of polyp number and family history of colon cancer with germline MYH mutations. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 3(10):1022–1028
Karlitz JJ, Hsieh MC, Liu Y, Blanton C, Schmidt B, Jessup JM, Wu XC, Chen VW (2015) Population-based lynch syndrome screening by microsatellite instability in patients </=50: prevalence, testing determinants, and result availability prior to colon surgery. Am J Gastroenterol 110(7):948–955
Kohlmann W, Gruber SB (2004) Lynch syndrome. GeneReviews® Retrieved Aug 6, 2018, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1211/
Lagerstedt Robinson K, Liu T, Vandrovcova J, Halvarsson B, Clendenning M, Frebourg T, Papadopoulos N, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B, Peltomäki P, Kolodner RD, Nilbert M, Lindblom A (2007) Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) diagnostics. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(4):291–299
Lagerstedt-Robinson K, Rohlin A, Aravidis C, Melin B, Nordling M, Stenmark-Askmalm M, Lindblom A, Nilbert M (2016) Mismatch repair gene mutation spectrum in the Swedish lynch syndrome population. Oncol Rep 36(5):2823–2835
Lynch HT, Snyder CL, Shaw TG, Heinen CD, Hitchins MP (2015) Milestones of lynch syndrome: 1895-2015. Nat Rev Cancer 15(3):181–194
Møller P, Seppälä TT, Bernstein I, Holinski-Feder E, Sala P, Gareth Evans D, Lindblom A, Macrae F, Blanco I, Sijmons RH, Jeffries J, Vasen HFA, Burn J, Nakken S, Hovig E, Rødland EA, Tharmaratnam K, de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel WH, Hill J, Wijnen JT, Jenkins MA, Green K, Lalloo F, Sunde L, Mints M, Bertario L, Pineda M, Navarro M, Morak M, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Valentin MD, Frayling IM, Plazzer JP, Pylvanainen K, Genuardi M, Mecklin JP, Moeslein G, Sampson JR, Capella G, Mallorca G (2018) Cancer risk and survival in path_MMR carriers by gene and gender up to 75 years of age: a report from the prospective lynch syndrome database. Gut 67(7):1306–1316
Nilbert M, Planck M, Fernebro E, Borg Å, Johnson A (1999) Microsatellite instability is rare in rectal carcinomas and signifies hereditary cancer. Eur J Cancer 35(6):942–945
Parsons MT, Buchanan DD, Thompson B, Young JP, Spurdle AB (2012) Correlation of tumour BRAF mutations and MLH1 methylation with germline mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutation status: a literature review assessing utility of tumour features for MMR variant classification. J Med Genet 49(3):151–157
Plaschke J, Engel C, Kruger S, Holinski-Feder E, Pagenstecher C, Mangold E, Moeslein G, Schulmann K, Gebert J, von Knebel Doeberitz M, Ruschoff J, Loeffler M, Schackert HK (2004) Lower incidence of colorectal cancer and later age of disease onset in 27 families with pathogenic MSH6 germline mutations compared with families with MLH1 or MSH2 mutations: the German hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer consortium. J Clin Oncol 22(22):4486–4494
Rohlin A, Rambech E, Kvist A, Törngren T, Eiengard F, Lundstam U, Zagoras T, Gebre-Medhin S, Borg Å, Björk J, Nilbert M, Nordling M (2017) Expanding the genotype-phenotype spectrum in hereditary colorectal cancer by gene panel testing. Familial Cancer 16(2):195–203
Senter L, Clendenning M, Sotamaa K, Hampel H, Green J, Potter JD, Lindblom A, Lagerstedt K, Thibodeau SN, Lindor NM, Young J, Winship I, Dowty JG, White DM, Hopper JL, Baglietto L, Jenkins MA, de la Chapelle A (2008) The clinical phenotype of lynch syndrome due to germ-line PMS2 mutations. Gastroenterology 135(2):419–428
Sjursen W, Haukanes BI, Grindedal EM, Aarset H, Stormorken A, Engebretsen LF, Jonsrud C, Bjørnevoll I, Andresen PA, Ariansen S, Lavik LA, Gilde B, Bowitz-Lothe IM, Maehle L, Møller P (2010) Current clinical criteria for lynch syndrome are not sensitive enough to identify MSH6 mutation carriers. J Med Genet 47(9):579–585
Snowsill T, Huxley N, Hoyle M, Jones-Hughes T, Coelho H, Cooper C, Frayling I, Hyde C (2015) A model-based assessment of the cost-utility of strategies to identify lynch syndrome in early-onset colorectal cancer patients. BMC Cancer 15:313
Spier I, Holzapfel S, Altmuller J, Zhao B, Horpaopan S, Vogt S, Chen S, Morak M, Raeder S, Kayser K, Stienen D, Adam R, Nurnberg P, Plotz G, Holinski-Feder E, Lifton RP, Thiele H, Hoffmann P, Steinke V, Aretz S (2015) Frequency and phenotypic spectrum of germline mutations in POLE and seven other polymerase genes in 266 patients with colorectal adenomas and carcinomas. Int J Cancer 137(2):320–331
Stoffel EM, Boland CR (2015) Genetics and genetic testing in hereditary colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 149(5):1191–1203 e1192
Stoffel EM, Koeppe E, Everett J, Ulintz P, Kiel M, Osborne J, Williams L, Hanson K, Gruber SB, Rozek LS (2018) Germline genetic features of young individuals with colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 154(4):897–905 e891
The National Board of Health and Welfare in Sweden (2018) Statistics on cancer incidence. https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/english. Accessed Aug 6, 2018
Thompson BA, Spurdle AB, Plazzer JP, Greenblatt MS, Akagi K, Al-Mulla F, Bapat B, Bernstein I, Capella G, den Dunnen JT, du Sart D, Fabre A, Farrell MP, Farrington SM, Frayling IM, Frebourg T, Goldgar DE, Heinen CD, Holinski-Feder E, Kohonen-Corish M, Robinson KL, Leung SY, Martins A, Møller P, Morak M, Nyström M, Peltomäki P, Pineda M, Qi M, Ramesar R, Rasmussen LJ, Royer-Pokora B, Scott RJ, Sijmons R, Tavtigian SV, Tops CM, Weber T, Wijnen J, Woods MO, Macrae F, Genuardi M (2014) Application of a 5-tiered scheme for standardized classification of 2,360 unique mismatch repair gene variants in the InSiGHT locus-specific database. Nat Genet 46(2):107–115
Valle L (2017) Recent discoveries in the genetics of familial colorectal cancer and polyposis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 15(6):809–819
Yurgelun MB, Kulke MH, Fuchs CS, Allen BA, Uno H, Hornick JL, Ukaegbu CI, Brais LK, McNamara PG, Mayer RJ, Schrag D, Meyerhardt JA, Ng K, Kidd J, Singh N, Hartman AR, Wenstrup RJ, Syngal S (2017) Cancer susceptibility gene mutations in individuals with colorectal Cancer. J Clin Oncol 35(10):1086–1095
Funding
This study was financially supported by BioCARE, a cancer research collaboration between Lund University and Göteborg University funded by the Swedish government.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval
This study constitutes a retrospective evaluation of clinical data and was part of a quality assessment project at the Department of Clinical Genetics in Lund. Informed written consent for cancer genetic investigation was collected from each proband as part of the clinical routine.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Henriksson, I., Henriksson, K., Ehrencrona, H. et al. Hereditary colorectal cancer diagnostics in southern Sweden: retrospective evaluation and future considerations with emphasis on Lynch syndrome. J Community Genet 10, 259–266 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-018-0385-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-018-0385-1