Walters, Rhiannon

AbstractBackground and AimTumor testing of colorectal cancers (CRC) for mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency is an effective approach to identify carriers of germline MMR gene mutation (Lynch syndrome). The aim of this study was to identify MMR gene mutation carriers in two cohorts of population‐based CRC utilizing a combination of tumor and germline testing approaches.MethodsColorectal cancers from 813 patients diagnosed with CRC < 60 years of age from the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (ACCFR) and from 826 patients from the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS) were tested for MMR protein expression using immunohistochemistry, microsatellite instability (MSI), BRAFV600E somatic mutation, and for MLH1 methylation. MMR gene mutation testing (Sanger sequencing and Multiplex Ligation Dependent Probe Amplification) was performed on germline DNA of patients with MMR‐deficient tumors and a subset of MMR‐proficient CRCs.ResultsOf the 813 ACCFR probands, 90 probands demonstrated tumor MMR deficiency (11.1%), and 42 had a MMR gene germline mutation (5.2%). For the MCCS, MMR deficiency was identified in the tumors of 103 probands (12.5%) and seven had a germline mutation (0.8%). All the mutation carriers were diagnosed prior to 70 years of age. Probands with a MMR‐deficient CRC without MLH1 methylation and a gene mutation were considered Lynch‐like and comprised 41.1% and 25.2% of the MMR‐deficient CRCs for the ACCFR and MCCS, respectively.ConclusionsIdentification of MMR gene mutation carriers in Australian CRC‐affected patients is optimized by immunohistochemistry screening of CRC diagnosed before 70 years of age. A significant proportion of MMR‐deficient CRCs will have unknown etiology (Lynch‐like) proving problematic for clinical management.

Abstract Background: The CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) represents a subset of colorectal cancers characterized by widespread aberrant DNA hypermethylation at select CpG islands. The risk factors and environmental exposures contributing to etiologic heterogeneity between CIMP and non-CIMP tumors are not known. Methods: We measured the CIMP status of 3,119 primary population-based colorectal cancer tumors from the multinational Colon Cancer Family Registry. Etiologic heterogeneity was assessed by a case–case study comparing risk factor frequency of colorectal cancer cases with CIMP and non-CIMP tumors using logistic regression to estimate the case–case odds ratio (ccOR). Results: We found associations between tumor CIMP status and MSI-H (ccOR = 7.6), BRAF V600E mutation (ccOR = 59.8), proximal tumor site (ccOR = 9; all P &lt; 0.0001), female sex [ccOR = 1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.5–2.1], older age (ccOR = 4.0 comparing over 70 years vs. under 50; 95% CI, 3.0–5.5), and family history of CRC (ccOR = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5–0.7). While use of NSAIDs varied by tumor CIMP status for both males and females (P = 0.0001 and P = 0.02, respectively), use of multivitamin or calcium supplements did not. Only for female colorectal cancer was CIMP status associated with increased pack-years of smoking (Ptrend &lt; 0.001) and body mass index (BMI; Ptrend = 0.03). Conclusions: The frequency of several colorectal cancer risk factors varied by CIMP status, and the associations of smoking and obesity with tumor subtype were evident only for females. Impact: Differences in the associations of a unique DNA methylation–based subgroup of colorectal cancer with important lifestyle and environmental exposures increase understanding of the molecular pathologic epidemiology of this heavily methylated subset of colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 24(3); 512–9. ©2015 AACR.

Objective To estimate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) for first-degree relatives of CRC cases based on CRC molecular subtypes and tumour pathology features. Design We studied a cohort of 33 496 first-degree relatives of 4853 incident invasive CRC cases (probands) who were recruited to the Colon Cancer Family Registry through population cancer registries in the USA, Canada and Australia. We categorised the first-degree relatives into four groups: 28 156 of 4095 mismatch repair (MMR)-proficient probands, 2302 of 301 MMR-deficient non-Lynch syndrome probands, 1799 of 271 suspected Lynch syndrome probands and 1239 of 186 Lynch syndrome probands. We compared CRC risk for first-degree relatives stratified by the absence or presence of specific tumour molecular pathology features in probands across each of these four groups and for all groups combined. Results Compared with first-degree relatives of MMR-proficient CRC cases, a higher risk of CRC was estimated for first-degree relatives of CRC cases with suspected Lynch syndrome (HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.59 to 2.67) and with Lynch syndrome (HR 5.37, 95% CI 4.16 to 6.94), but not with MMR-deficient non-Lynch syndrome (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.31). A greater risk of CRC was estimated for first-degree relatives if CRC cases were diagnosed before age 50 years, had proximal colon cancer or if their tumours had any of the following: expanding tumour margin, peritumoral lymphocytes, tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes or synchronous CRC. Conclusions Molecular pathology features are potentially useful to refine screening recommendations for first-degree relatives of CRC cases and to identify which cases are more likely to be caused by genetic or other familial factors.

Abstract Background: Previous reports suggest that relatives of colorectal cancer (CRC)-affected probands carrying the BRAF p.V600E mutation are at an increased risk of CRC and extracolonic cancers (ECC). In this study, we estimated the association between a family history of either CRC or ECC and risk of CRC with a BRAF p.V600E mutation. Methods: Population-based CRC cases (probands, ages 18–59 years at diagnosis), recruited irrespective of family cancer history, were characterized for BRAF p.V600E mutation and mismatch repair (MMR) status. ORs and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. Results: The 690 eligible probands showed a mean age at CRC diagnosis of 46.9 ± 7.8 years, with 313 (47.9%) reporting a family history of CRC and 53 (7.7%) that were BRAF-mutated. Probands with BRAF-mutated, MMR-proficient CRCs were less likely to have a family history of CRC than probands that were BRAF wild-type (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24–0.91; P = 0.03). For probands with a BRAF-mutated CRC, the mean age at diagnosis was greater for those with a CRC-affected first- or second-degree relative (49.3 ± 6.4 years) compared with those without a family history (43.8 ± 10.2 years; P = 0.04). The older the age at diagnosis of CRC with the BRAF p.V600E mutation, the more likely these probands were to show a family history of CRC (OR, 1.09 per year of age; 95% CI, 1.00–1.18; P = 0.04). Conclusions: Probands with early-onset, BRAF-mutated, and MMR-proficient CRC were less likely to have a family history of CRC than probands that were BRAF-wild-type. Impact: These findings provide useful insights for cancer risk assessment in families and suggest that familial or inherited factors are more important in early-onset, BRAF-wild-type CRC. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(5); 917–26. ©2013 AACR.