Hereditary Colorectal Cancer Workup
- Author: Juan Carlos Munoz, MD; Chief Editor: Julian Katz, MD more...
Other Tests
When a family fulfills the Amsterdam or Bethesda Criteria (see History, Guidelines), examination of tumor tissue is indicated (even those removed years before). Tests include immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing, MSI testing (usually used as a prescreening test), and DNA analysis (considered unnecessary, expensive, and time-consuming) (see Genetic Testing).
Tumor Testing
Immunohistochemistry
IHC testing for HNPCC or Lynch syndrome uses monoclonal antibodies to show which mismatch repair (MMR) proteins are present in a tissue sample. Antibodies are chemically tagged to produce colored stains when they bind to their target MMRs. Samples of tumor tissue are tested using IHC to assess for the MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 proteins associated with colorectal cancer. The absence of a protein suggests a mutation in the gene that produces it.
An IHC pattern with absent staining for MLH1 and PMS2 and positive staining for MSH2 and MSH6 indicates a mutation in MLH1 (see Table 3 below).[2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
An IHC pattern with no staining for MSH2 and MSH6 and positive staining for MLH1 and PMS2 indicates a mutation in MSH2 (see Table 3).
Of the tumors from carriers of a germline mutation in MSH6, 5% have been detected with an IHC pattern compatible with MSH2 mutation. Thus, if MSH2 mutation screening results are negative, experts recommend DNA analysis of MSH6. Loss of MSH6 expression is the predominant cause of mismatch repair MMR deficiency in early-onset CRC. Endometrial cancer has also been associated with MSH6 mutation.[7]
In the fourth row of Table 3, the IHC pattern matching a mutation in MSH6 is shown as absent staining for MSH6 and positive staining for the remaining 3 MMR proteins. This demonstrates the same principle as MSH2: If no mutation is identified, DNA analysis of MSH2 may be considered.
In the fifth row of Table 3, the IHC pattern matching a mutation in PMS2 is shown as absent staining for PMS2, with positive staining for the remaining 3 MMR proteins.
Compared with MSI analysis, IHC has the additional advantage of indicating the MMR gene that is most eligible for DNA analysis. IHC is especially indicative for MMR mutations that result in truncation of the protein, such as frame shift, splice site mutations, large genomic rearrangements, and mismatch, although IHC is not always diagnostic for mismatch. In this case, the protein may be functionally abnormal but is still detected with IHC.
Table 3. IHC staining findings. (Open Table in a new window)
| MMR Mutations | Protein Staining | |||
| MLH1 | MSH2 | MSH6 | PMS2 | |
| MLH1 | - | + | + | - |
| MSH2 | + | - | - | + |
| MSH6 | + | + | - | + |
| PMS2 | + | + | + | - |
MSI analysis
MSI is the hallmark of the defective DNA MMR gene. First described in 1993, MSI is a phenomenon found in colorectal cancer DNA but not in the adjacent normal colorectal mucosa of individuals with MMR mutations. MSI is characterized by expansion or contraction of short repeated DNA sequences caused by insertion or deletion of repeated units (DNA regions with repeated patterns of base pairs).
More than 90% of HNPCC tumors (including both adenomas and cancers) and 15% of sporadic colorectal cancers exhibit MSI. This test is used to detect failure of the DNA MMR machinery to repair errors that occur during DNA replication. Such failure leads to increased length in the variation of simple, repetitive sequences distributed throughout the genome. The presence of instability indicates impairment in the DNA replication and repair system, which may be caused by mutations in mismatch repair genes.
A standardized panel of 5 markers is used (D2S123, D5S346, D17S250, BAT25, BAT26 [and possibly BAT40 to increase test sensitivity]). MSI can be subclassified as MSI-high (MSH-H), if 2 or more markers are positive or at least 30% of the markers shows instability, or MSI-low (MSH-L), if only a single marker is positive or less than 30% of the markers show instability. Tumors with no positive markers are referred to as microsatellite stable (MSS).
Carcinomas in MSH6 carriers, particularly endometrial carcinomas, have been shown to present with an MSS phenotype; therefore, if an MSS phenotype is found, IHC of MSH6 should be obtained. Nearly 90% of hMLH1 and hMSH2 mutations result in the MSH-H phenotype, whereas nearly 10% of hMLH6 mutations may result in the MSI-L or MSS phenotype.
Although most microsatellite regions are located in noncoding regions of the genome, some are located in the coding regions of genes involved in growth regulation (eg, transforming growth factor [TGF]-beta receptor type II) and apoptosis (eg, BAX). Alterations in these important regulatory genes are believed to be responsible for the accelerated rate of malignant transformation observed in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC).[2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
MSI analysis has a sensitivity of 93% in detecting MMR deficiency in carriers of MMR mutation. However, this test cannot be used to predict which of the MMR genes harbors a mutation.
Genetic Testing
For HNPCC or Lynch syndrome, germline testing may be used to identify MMR gene mutations. A blood sample is taken to identify mutations by sequence, deletion, duplication analysis, or rearrangement analysis. However, genetic testing for mutations in DNA MMR genes is expensive and time-consuming. Therefore, researchers have proposed techniques to identify ideal candidates (patients with cancer who are most likely to be HNPCC carriers).[8, 9] The Amsterdam criteria are useful but do not identify up to 30% of potential Lynch syndrome carriers.
Researchers have combined MSI profiling and IHC testing for DNA MMR gene expression. They identified an additional 32% of Lynch syndrome carriers that MSI profiling alone would have missed. Currently, this combined MSI profiling and IHC testing strategy is the most advanced method of identifying candidates for genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. The next step would be to consider performing a blood test to assess for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) or Lynch syndrome genetic mutation.
Genetic testing is not necessary to establish a diagnosis of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) or Lynch syndrome and does not provide a definitive diagnosis. The decision to go forward with genetic testing is complex. Patients should consult a genetic specialist, such as a genetic counselor, to discuss the benefits and risks before undergoing genetic testing.
In 1997, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Workshop on Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer Syndrome suggested 5 markers for evaluation of MSI. The results are classified as MSI-H if 2 or more markers are positive.
The American Gastroenterological Association published a literature summary of MSI test results that found that the highest percentage of MSI-H test results were found in families that met the Amsterdam criteria I, followed by patients with colorectal cancer who were diagnosed before age 35 years. Identical results were found for MMR gene testing.
In general, genetic testing should be offered when clinical suspicion of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) is firmly established—that is, clinical criteria have been met. It is generally accepted that patients who fulfill the Amsterdam criteria or the broader Bethesda criteria are candidates for testing.
The new guidelines recommend MSI or IHC analysis of tumors from affected high-risk patients as the preferred initial diagnostic strategy, followed by germline testing for hMLH1 and hMSH2 mutations for those with MSI-H tumors or tumors with a loss of expression of one of the MMR gene products. hMSH6 germline mutation testing should be considered when the tumor tests MSI-H.
Direct germline testing without MSI or IHC analysis remains an option for high-risk individuals if tissue testing is not feasible (eg, affected proband's tumor is unavailable) or if there is a strong suspicion of HNPCC and MSI/IHC testing reveals MSI-L, MSS, or normal expression of hMLH1 and hMSH2.
Benefits of genetic testing include the following[8, 9] :
- Genetic test results may allow for a more accurate assessment of cancer risk. If a mutation is identified, genetic testing and early cancer screening can be offered to the patient and other at-risk family members.
- Vigorous surveillance and management can then be recommended for patients with identified mutations.
- Patients with negative test results can avoid these rigorous, expensive, and time-consuming surveillance and management measures and simply follow the American Cancer Society's (ACS) recommendations for the general population.
- Genetic testing involves no physical risk other than that of a routine blood draw.
BRAF testing
The test for the V600E mutation in a BRAF gene helps to distinguish between HNPCC and sporadic cancer. Sporadic loss of the MLH1 protein expression may result from hypermethylation in the MLH1 gene promoter. Therefore, tumors that show loss of the MLH1 protein but neither BRAF V600E mutations nor hypermethylation are suspected of being associated with HNPCC or Lynch syndrome.[10, 11]
Concerns related to genetic testing include the following:
- Genetic testing can be emotionally difficult regardless of the results.[12] For example, an otherwise healthy adolescent may become troubled from the knowledge that he or she is a gene carrier with a strong likelihood of developing cancer. This information may compromise interpersonal relationships and educational plans, as well as career goals.
- Once the diagnosis of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndrome has been established, cancer surveillance and management recommendations within the context of genetic counseling should be extended to all available first-degree and second-degree relatives.
- For people with mutations, the costs associated with cancer screening and prevention may not be covered by their health insurance provider.
- Employer discrimination or insurance provider discrimination based on genetic test results is a possibility. As a result, in New York State, a person's genetic test results cannot be given to anyone else without the written permission of the person who was tested.
Table 4. Netherlands surveillance protocol for carriers of an MMR-gene mutation. (Open Table in a new window)
| Surveillance | MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 (males) | MSHG (females) |
| Colon | Colonoscopy, every 1-2 years, starting at age 20-25 years | Colonoscopy, every 1-2 years, starting at age 30 years |
| Endometrium | Ultrasonography and CA-125, every 1-2 years, starting at age 30-35 years | Ultrasonography and CA-125, every 1-2 years, starting at age 30-35 years; consider hysterectomy after age 50 years |
| Upper Urinary Tract | Urine cytology analysis, every 1-2 years, starting at age 30-35 years, if it occurs 2 or more times in a family | Urine cytology analysis, every 1-2 years, starting at age 30-35 years, if it occurs 2 or more times in a family |
| Stomach | Gastroscopy every 1-2 years, starting at age 30-35 years, if it occurs 2 or more times in a family | Gastroscopy every 1-2 years, starting at age 30-35 years, if it occurs 2 or more times in a family |
Difficulties in HNPCC
If the patient's family does not fulfill the Amsterdam criteria, but 2 tumors with an MSS phenotype are encountered, the Lynch syndrome surveillance protocol is currently recommended.[13, 14, 15] The age at which surveillance should be initiated and the surveillance intervals are the same as those recommended in the Netherlands surveillance protocol for carriers of mismatch repair gene mutation (see Table 3 above).
If the patient’s family is considered at risk and the specific gene mutation has not yet been identified, a negative genetic test result does not mean that the patient is not at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). The patient is still considered at risk if a family history of cancer, tumor testing, or genetic testing indicates HNPCC, even if genetic testing does not identify the gene mutation. Researchers have discovered only 7 mutations known to cause HNPCC but believe that many more remain to be discovered (see Table 1 in Pathophysiology section above).
One important problem to resolve is compliance with recommended screening procedures because of the patient’s fear and denial, as well as socioeconomic and educational barriers.
If a family does not fulfill the Bethesda criteria, no specific analysis for Lynch syndrome is indicated. This does not, however, exclude a hereditary factor in the development of colorectal carcinoma in a family. For that reason the referral criteria for genetic counseling are broader than the Bethesda criteria.
Also, it is not always clear, before a family is referred and before the family history and medical records are analyzed, if a family truly fulfills these criteria. Individuals with a first-degree relative with colorectal carcinoma have an increased relative risk of developing colorectal carcinoma compared with the population risk, but the cumulative risk is not higher than 10%. If a first-degree relative was diagnosed before the age 45 years or if an individual has 2 first-degree relatives with colorectal carcinoma, the risk is increased four- to sixfold (cumulative risk higher than 10%).
For these indications, a colonoscopic examination every 5 years from the age of 45 to 50 years has been recommended. However, the American Gastroenterological Association, US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the ACS recommend a colonoscopy every 5 years from age 40 years or 10 years before the earliest diagnosis if an individual has 2 or more first-degree relatives with colon cancer, or a single first-degree relative with colon cancer or adenomatous polyp diagnosed at an age < 60 years.
Colon Screening Tests
The major indications for colon screening tests are as follows:
- Individuals harboring deleterious germline MMR gene mutations
- Individuals whose affected relatives are unavailable for genetic testing
- At-risk relatives who refuse genetic testing
- At-risk asymptomatic individuals for whom genetic testing is inappropriate (eg, family members of probands with MSI-H tumors and noninformative MMR gene testing)
Published recommendations for colorectal cancer screening in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) are based on expert and consensus opinion. The goals of screening and surveillance are the same: to reduce mortality through the detection of presymptomatic, early-stage cancers and to reduce the incidence through the identification and removal of precancerous adenomas.
Early studies by Love and Morrissey,[16] Vasen et al,[17] and Mecklin et al[18] demonstrated that screening of asymptomatic, high-risk individuals detects early-stage cancers and advanced adenomas, thus providing indirect evidence of screening effectiveness. More compelling evidence is derived from a controlled trial by Jarvinen et al that involved 2 cohorts of at-risk individuals from 22 families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). One cohort (n = 133) underwent colonic screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy plus barium enema or colonoscopy every 3 years; the second cohort (n = 119) declined screening and served as the control group. After 15 years of patient observation, 8 screened subjects (6%) developed colorectal cancer compared with 19 unscreened subjects (16%; P = 0.014).
Colonoscopy
In 1997, colonoscopy was added to the guidelines as a screening option. Colonoscopy is considered the preferred screening test in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). The evidence to support colonoscopy is derived from data that show a decreased mortality rate in patients with colorectal cancer who have undergone colonoscopic adenoma removal. Additionally, colonoscopy screening is cost-effective compared with other screening strategies.
According to current ACS guidelines, colonoscopy should be offered to patients with a family history of colorectal cancer at age 20-25 years or 5-10 years before the earliest diagnosis of colorectal cancer in the family (whichever comes first) until age 40 years.[8] Thus, patients with familial nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome (3 or more family members with colon or related adenocarcinomas [including at least 1 first-degree relative], should undergo colonoscopy at age 25 years and then every 2-3 years thereafter.
Current cumulative data supported ACS guidelines regarding colonoscopy screening for patients with MLH1 and MSH2 mutations. However, female patients with MSH6 mutations have a lower risk of colorectal cancer. As a consequence, a new guideline has been proposed for this group of patients: colonoscopy starting at age 30 years as opposed to age 20-25 years.[19, 20, 21] To date, no prospective cohorts of MSH6 mutation carriers have been published to confirm the efficacy of this new screening strategy.
After age 40 years, colonoscopies should be performed every 1-2 years. This cost-effective strategy reduces both the incidence of and mortality from HNPCC-associated colorectal cancer.
Barium contrast study
Barium enema has the advantage of allowing visualization of the entire colon. However, there is evidence to suggest this technique is inaccurate in the detection of small polyps and early cancers and is suboptimal for colorectal cancer screening or surveillance in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC).
In a prospective study comparing the use of double-contrast barium enema and colonoscopy, the barium enema missed 52% of polyps smaller than 1 cm. If barium enema is the only option for screening or surveillance, it should be coupled with flexible sigmoidoscopy. The use of flexible sigmoidoscopy allows visualization of the rectosigmoid, which the barium enema may not depict well because of overlapping bowel loops. Lesions detected on barium enema warrant colonoscopic evaluation.
Flexible sigmoidoscopy
Flexible sigmoidoscopy is not significantly sensitive in individuals with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) mutations, because an estimated two thirds of HNPCC tumors develop on the right side of the colon (before the splenic flexure). Thus, flexible sigmoidoscopy should always be combined with at least barium enema when patients with HNPCC are screened.
Virtual colonoscopy
In virtual colonoscopy, computed tomography (CT) scanning is used to create a 3-dimensional (3-D) image of the air-extended, prepared colon. This procedure has potential as a colorectal cancer screening test in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC).
Virtual colonoscopy does not carry the risks of traditional colonoscopy, such as sedation or perforation. However, if a polyp is detected, a traditional colonoscopy would have to be performed to remove and analyze the polyp. The sensitivity for small polyps has been questioned, and negative virtual colonoscopy results may not be truly negative for the presence of a polyp. This test is not currently recommended as a screening test for patients who carry an MMR gene mutation.
Surveillance for Extracolonic Malignancies
IHC and MSI testing may be useful in carriers of an MMR gene mutation (see Table 3 above), as proposed in the Netherlands surveillance protocol.
Women with Lynch syndrome are recommended to have an annual pelvic examination, ultrasonographic examination, and small biopsies of the uterus starting at around age 30 or 35 years to screen for uterine cancer.[22]
In at-risk women, an annual screening test for endometrial cancer is recommended, beginning at age 20-30 years. No consensus has been reached on the optimal method of screening: endometrial aspiration (for cytology or histology) or biopsy and transvaginal ultrasonography should be performed annually (see Treatment, Surgical Care, Prophylactic hysterectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy).
An annual screening test for ovarian cancer is also recommended.[22] Transvaginal ultrasonography and the ovarian cancer blood test (CA-125) are occasionally used for screening beginning at age 25-30 years, but these techniques are not sensitive and often reveal only cancerous tumors at a later stage. An alternative is to have surgery to remove at-risk body parts before cancer develops. Thus, in addition to recommending endometrial cancer surveillance, it is prudent to recommend to women in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) to seek prompt evaluation of abnormal menstrual bleeding, regardless of their last surveillance exam results.
Based on the results of current data, routine upper endoscopic surveillance is of no benefit in Lynch syndrome. However, selective use of upper endoscopy may be justifiable in high-risk kindred. Although there are authors who do not support routine upper endoscopy evaluation in patients with HNPCC,[23] most authorities, including the International Collaborative Group on hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), recommend an upper endoscopic procedure every 1-2 years beginning at age 30 years for at-risk relatives with HNPCC-associated gastric cancer.[17, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28]
For example, in the Asian population (eg, Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese), gastric cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death; therefore these individuals are probably in a higher risk than other people.
As we know most of these studies have been done in Japan and China, where the rates of stomach cancer are much higher. To date, the data have been inconclusive as to whether these screening tools affect the stomach cancer prognosis. Therefore, routine stomach cancer screening for the general population is not recommended. However, stomach cancer screening may be recommended for some people who are at greater risk of developing the disease. People who are considered at risk include:
- Elderly people with atrophic gastritis or pernicious anemia
- Patients with partial gastrectomy
- Patients with the diagnosis of sporadic adenomas
- Those with FAP
- Those with hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer
- Immigrant ethnic populations from countries with high rates of gastric carcinoma
- Even in these groups of people, the impact of screening on death from stomach cancer is not known.
A similar argument can be made for selective surveillance of Lynch syndrome kindred who exhibit small bowel adenocarcinomas. Despite the lack of supporting data, endoscopic surveillance with enteroscopy or capsule endoscopy every 1-2 years may be justifiable in high-risk individuals (Asian population).
For families with a history of urinary tract tumors, upper urinary tract screening tests may be beneficial. These families should undergo urinary tract ultrasonography, cystoscopy, and urinary cytology every 1-2 years beginning at age 30-35 years.
At this time, no specific screening recommendations for hepatobiliary tract cancers exist, and, in general, liver and biliary tract screening tests are not recommended. However, hepatocellular carcinoma is known to be associated with polyposis coli, and children with maternal ancestors who were affected with the syndrome have developed hepatoblastoma. For families with a history of this type of cancer, transabdominal ultrasonography of the biliary tree and liver function tests have been suggested.[29, 30, 31, 32]
Histologic Findings
Adenomas are often villous with components of high-grade dysplasia and exhibit an accelerated rate of malignant transformation. Colorectal cancers in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) have a more aggressive histology (increased frequency of poorly differentiated, mucinous, and signet cells).
Hamilton SR, Liu B, Parsons RE, et al. The molecular basis of Turcot's syndrome. N Engl J Med. Mar 30 1995;332(13):839-47. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Lothe RA, Peltomaki P, Meling GI, et al. Genomic instability in colorectal cancer: relationship to clinicopathological variables and family history. Cancer Res. Dec 15 1993;53(24):5849-52. [Medline].
Marra G, Boland CR. Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: the syndrome, the genes, and historical perspectives. J Natl Cancer Inst. Aug 2 1995;87(15):1114-25. [Medline].
Dunlop MG, Farrington SM, Carothers AD, et al. Cancer risk associated with germline DNA mismatch repair gene mutations. Hum Mol Genet. Jan 1997;6(1):105-10. [Medline]. [Full Text].
American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures 2008. Atlanta, Ga: American Cancer Society; 2008. Available at http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/content/STT_1x_Cancer_Facts_and_Figures_2008.asp?from=fast. Accessed February 13, 2009.
Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al, for the 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. May 2008;134(5):1570-95. [Medline].
Giraldez MD, Balaguer F, Bujanda L, Cuatrecasas M, Munoz J, Alonso-Espinaco V. MSH6 and MUTYH deficiency is a frequent event in early-onset colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. Oct 5 2010;[Medline].
American Cancer Society. Available at http://www.cancer.org/docroot/home/index.asp. Accessed February 20, 2009.
Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Boland CR, Hamilton SR, et al. A National Cancer Institute Workshop on Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer Syndrome: meeting highlights and Bethesda guidelines. J Natl Cancer Inst. Dec 3 1997;89(23):1758-62. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Zhang L. Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing for screening colorectal cancer patients at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Part II. The utility of microsatellite instability testing. J Mol Diagn. Jul 2008;10(4):301-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].
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. Jul 19 2011;155(2):69-79. [Medline].
Weissman SM, Bellcross C, Bittner CC, Freivogel ME, Haidle JL, Kaurah P. Genetic Counseling Considerations in the Evaluation of Families for Lynch Syndrome-A Review. J Genet Couns. Oct 8 2010;[Medline].
Vasen HF, Nagengast FM, Griffioen G, et al, for The Work Group 'Hereditary non-polyposis- colon-rectum cancers'. [Periodic colonoscopic examinations of persons with a positive family history for colorectal cancer] [Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. Jun 5 1999;143(23):1211-4. [Medline].
Smith RA, von Eschenbach AC, Wender R, et al, for the ACS Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee, ACS Colorectal Cancer Advisory Committee, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer: update of early detection guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers. Also: update 2001--testing for early lung cancer detection. CA Cancer J Clin. Jan-Feb 2001;51(1):38-75; quiz 77-80. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Winawer S, Fletcher R, Rex D, et al, for the Gastrointestinal Consortium Panel. Colorectal cancer screening and surveillance: clinical guidelines and rationale-Update based on new evidence. Gastroenterology. Feb 2003;124(2):544-60. [Medline].
Love RR, Morrissey JF. Colonoscopy in asymptomatic individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer. Arch Intern Med. Nov 1984;144(11):2209-11. [Medline].
Vasen HF, Mecklin JP, Khan PM, Lynch HT. The International Collaborative Group on Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer (ICG-HNPCC). Dis Colon Rectum. May 1991;34(5):424-5. [Medline].
Mecklin JP, Jarvinen HJ, Peltokallio P. Cancer family syndrome. Genetic analysis of 22 Finnish kindreds. Gastroenterology. Feb 1986;90(2):328-33. [Medline].
Lindor NM, Petersen GM, Hadley DW, et al. Recommendations for the care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to Lynch syndrome: a systematic review. JAMA. Sep 27 2006;296(12):1507-17. [Medline].
Ramsoekh D, Wagner A, van Leerdam ME, et al. Cancer risk in MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 mutation carriers; different risk profiles may influence clinical management. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. Dec 23 2009;7(1):17. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Bonadona V, Bonaïti B, Olschwang S, et al. Cancer risks associated with germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes in Lynch syndrome. JAMA. Jun 8 2011;305(22):2304-10. [Medline].
Hampel H, Frankel W, Panescu J, et al. Screening for Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) among endometrial cancer patients. Cancer Res. Aug 1 2006;66(15):7810-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Sipponen P, Aarnio M, et al. No support for endoscopic surveillance for gastric cancer in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Scand J Gastroenterol. May 2002;37(5):574-7. [Medline].
Vasen HF, Watson P, Mecklin JP, Lynch HT. New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by The International Collaborative Group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology. Jun 1999;116(6):1453-6. [Medline].
Ramsey SD. Screening for the Lynch syndrome. N Engl J Med. Aug 4 2005;353(5):524-5; author reply 524-5. [Medline].
Hampel H, Frankel WL, Martin E, et al. Screening for the Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). N Engl J Med. May 5 2005;352(18):1851-60. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Watson P, Lynch HT. Extracolonic cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Cancer. Feb 1 1993;71(3):677-85. [Medline].
Bliss CM Jr, Schroy PC 3rd. Endoscopic diagnosis and management of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. Sep 2004;20(5):468-73. [Medline].
Foster JH. Survival after liver resection for cancer. Cancer. Sep 1970;26(3):493-502. [Medline].
Exelby PR, Filler RM, Grosfeld JL. Liver tumors in children in the particular reference to hepatoblastoma and hepatocellular carcinoma: American Academy of Pediatrics Surgical Section Survey--1974. J Pediatr Surg. Jun 1975;10(3):329-37. [Medline].
Weinberger JM, Cohen Z, Berk T. Polyposis coli preceded by hepatocellular carcinoma: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. May-Jun 1981;24(4):296-300. [Medline].
Locker G, ed. Colorectal cancer: extracolonic manifestations in HNPCC. Updated April 7, 2006. Chicago Center for Jewish Genetic Disorders. Available at http://www.jewishgeneticscenter.org/professional/colorectal/#HNPCC. Accessed February 20, 2009.
Lanspa SJ, Jenkins JX, Cavalieri RJ, et al. Surveillance in Lynch syndrome: how aggressive?. Am J Gastroenterol. Nov 1994;89(11):1978-80. [Medline].
de Vos tot Nederveen Cappel WH, Nagengast FM, Griffioen G, et al. Surveillance for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: a long-term study on 114 families. Dis Colon Rectum. Dec 2002;45(12):1588-94. [Medline].
Syngal S, Weeks JC, Schrag D, Garber JE, Kuntz KM. Benefits of colonoscopic surveillance and prophylactic colectomy in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer mutations. Ann Intern Med. Nov 15 1998;129(10):787-96. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Stupart DA, Goldberg PA, Baigrie RJ, Algar U, Ramesar R. Surgery for colonic cancer in HNPCC: Total versus segmental colectomy. Colorectal Dis. Oct 22 2010;[Medline].
Chan TA. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, apoptosis, and colon-cancer chemoprevention. Lancet Oncol. Mar 2002;3(3):166-74. [Medline].
O'Shaughnessy JA, Kelloff GJ, Gordon GB, et al. Treatment and prevention of intraepithelial neoplasia: an important target for accelerated new agent development. Clin Cancer Res. Feb 2002;8(2):314-46. [Medline]. [Full Text].
DuBois RN, Smalley WE. Cyclooxygenase, NSAIDs, and colorectal cancer. J Gastroenterol. Dec 1996;31(6):898-906. [Medline].
Sinicrope FA, Half E, Morris JS, et al, for the Familial Adenomatous Polyposis Study Group. Cell proliferation and apoptotic indices predict adenoma regression in a placebo-controlled trial of celecoxib in familial adenomatous polyposis patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. Jun 2004;13(6):920-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Markowitz SD. Aspirin and colon cancer--targeting prevention?. N Engl J Med. May 24 2007;356(21):2195-8. [Medline].
Cole BF, Baron JA, Sandler RS, et al, for the Polyp Prevention Study Group. Folic acid for the prevention of colorectal adenomas: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. Jun 6 2007;297(21):2351-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Giovannucci E, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, et al. Multivitamin use, folate, and colon cancer in women in the Nurses' Health Study. Ann Intern Med. Oct 1 1998;129(7):517-24. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Baron JA, Beach M, Mandel JS, et al, for The Calcium Polyp Prevention Study Group. Calcium supplements for the prevention of colorectal adenomas. N Engl J Med. Jan 14 1999;340(2):101-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Grau MV, Baron JA, Sandler RS, et al. Vitamin D, calcium supplementation, and colorectal adenomas: results of a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. Dec 3 2003;95(23):1765-71. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Wu K, Willett WC, Fuchs CS, Colditz GA, Giovannucci EL. Calcium intake and risk of colon cancer in women and men. J Natl Cancer Inst. Mar 20 2002;94(6):437-46. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Estrogen linked to colon cancer protection. February 9, 2004. EndoNurse.com. Available at http://www.endonurse.com/hotnews/42h9888.html. Accessed February 13, 2009.
Slattery ML, Caan BJ, Potter JD, et al. Dietary energy sources and colon cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol. Feb 1 1997;145(3):199-210. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Colangelo LA, Gapstur SM, Gann PH, Dyer AR. Cigarette smoking and colorectal carcinoma mortality in a cohort with long-term follow-up. Cancer. Jan 15 2004;100(2):288-93. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Nilsen TI, Vatten LJ. Prospective study of colorectal cancer risk and physical activity, diabetes, blood glucose and BMI: exploring the hyperinsulinaemia hypothesis. Br J Cancer. Feb 2 2001;84(3):417-22. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Boland CR, Goel A. Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. Jun 2010;138(6):2073-2087.e3. [Medline].
Brentnall T, Nguyen T, Mealiffe M,Grady WM, Wong E. Colon cancer screening. Available at http://www.uwgi.org/guidelines/ch_08/ch08txt.htm. Accessed February 20, 2009.
Rustgi AK. Mechanisms and epidemiology of colon cancer (PowerPoint presentation). Available at www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/02/slides/3845s1_01_rustgi.ppt. Accessed February 20. 2009.
Mizoguchi H, O'Shea JJ, Longo DL, et al. Alterations in signal transduction molecules in T lymphocytes from tumor-bearing mice. Science. Dec 11 1992;258(5089):1795-8. [Medline].
Aarnio M, Mecklin JP, Aaltonen LA, et al. Life-time risk of different cancers in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndrome. Int J Cancer. Dec 20 1995;64(6):430-3. [Medline].
Houlston RS, Murday V, Harocopos C, Williams CB, Slack J. Screening and genetic counselling for relatives of patients with colorectal cancer in a family cancer clinic. BMJ. Aug 18-25 1990;301(6748):366-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Bronner CE, Baker SM, Morrison PT, et al. Mutation in the DNA mismatch repair gene homologue hMLH1 is associated with hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer. Nature. Mar 17 1994;368(6468):258-61. [Medline].
Calistri D, Presciuttini S, Buonsanti G, et al. Microsatellite instability in colorectal-cancer patients with suspected genetic predisposition. Int J Cancer. Jan 20 2000;89(1):87-91. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Church JM. Prophylactic colectomy in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Ann Med. Dec 1996;28(6):479-82. [Medline].
Cummings JH, Bingham SA. Diet and the prevention of cancer. BMJ. Dec 12 1998;317(7173):1636-40. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Feldman M, Friedman LS, Brandt LJ. Sleisenger and Fordtran's Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, Management. Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders Elsevier; 2006.
Heiskanen I, Jarvinen HJ. Fate of the rectal stump after colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis for familial adenomatous polyposis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1997;12(1):9-13. [Medline].
Hendriks YM, de Jong AE, Morreau H, et al. Diagnostic approach and management of Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma): a guide for clinicians. CA Cancer J Clin. Jul-Aug 2006;56(4):213-25. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Jarvinen TA, Pelto-Huikko M, Holli K, Isola J. Estrogen receptor beta is coexpressed with ERalpha and PR and associated with nodal status, grade, and proliferation rate in breast cancer. Am J Pathol. Jan 2000;156(1):29-35. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Lanspa SJ, Jenkins JX, Watson P, et al. Natural history of at-risk Lynch syndrome family members with respect to adenomas. Nebr Med J. Nov 1992;77(11):310-3. [Medline].
Lin KM, Shashidharan M, Ternent CA, et al. Colorectal and extracolonic cancer variations in MLH1/MSH2 hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer kindreds and the general population. Dis Colon Rectum. Apr 1998;41(4):428-33. [Medline].
[Best Evidence] Lindor NM, Petersen GM, Hadley DW, et al. Recommendations for the care of individuals with an inherited predisposition to Lynch syndrome: a systematic review. JAMA. Sep 27 2006;296(12):1507-17. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Locker G, ed. Colorectal cancer: Muir-Torre and Turcot syndrome. Updated April 7, 2006. Chicago Center for Jewish Genetic Disorders. Available at http://www.jewishgeneticscenter.org/professional/colorectal/#muir. Accessed February 20, 2009.
Lynch HT. Is there a role for prophylactic subtotal colectomy among hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer germline mutation carriers?. Dis Colon Rectum. Jan 1996;39(1):109-10. [Medline].
Lynch HT, Boland CR, Gong G, et al. Phenotypic and genotypic heterogeneity in the Lynch syndrome: diagnostic, surveillance and management implications. Eur J Hum Genet. Apr 2006;14(4):390-402. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Lynch HT, Krush AJ. Cancer family "G" revisited: 1895-1970. Cancer. Jun 1971;27(6):1505-11. [Medline].
Lynch HT, Riley BD, Weissman SM, et al. Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma (HNPCC) and HNPCC-like families: problems in diagnosis, surveillance, and management. Cancer. Jan 1 2004;100(1):53-64. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Mizoguchi T, Yamada K, Furukawa T, et al. Expression of the MDR1 gene in human gastric and colorectal carcinomas. J Natl Cancer Inst. Nov 7 1990;82(21):1679-83. [Medline].
Nugent KP, Spigelman AD, Phillips RK. Life expectancy after colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis for familial adenomatous polyposis. Dis Colon Rectum. Nov 1993;36(11):1059-62. [Medline].
Schmeler KM, Lynch HT, Chen LM, et al. Prophylactic surgery to reduce the risk of gynecologic cancers in the Lynch syndrome. N Engl J Med. Jan 19 2006;354(3):261-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP, et al. Revised Bethesda Guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst. Feb 18 2004;96(4):261-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Winn RJ, McClure J. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelinesin Oncology - v.1.2003. Available at http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/introduction.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2009.
Burn J, 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;61049-0.
- Table 1. Seven different genes are known to be associated with HNPCC, and all of them are involved with DNA mismatch repair, identified with the frequencies below.
- Table 2. Incidence of different types of cancers between individuals with Lynch syndrome and those in the general population.
- Table 3. IHC staining findings.
- Table 4. Netherlands surveillance protocol for carriers of an MMR-gene mutation.
- Table 5. Dukes classification.
| Mismatch Excision Repaired MMR | Chromosome Location | Frequency of HNPCC Cases |
| MSH2 | 2p16 | 45-50% |
| MLH1 | 3p22.3/A> | 20% |
| MSH6 | 2p16 | 10% |
| PMS2 | 7p22.1 | 1% |
| PMS1 | 2q32.2 | Rare |
| MSH3 | 5q14.1 | Rare |
| EXO1 | 1q43 | Rare |
| Other genes not yet discovered | 20-25% |
| Type of Cancer | General Population Risk (by age 70 y) | Lynch Syndrome Risk (by age 70 y) |
| Endometrial | 1.5% | 30-40% |
| Ovarian | 1% | 9-12% |
| Upper Urinary Tract | Less than 1% | 4-10% |
| Stomach | Less than 1% | 13% (higher in Asians) |
| Small Bowel | Less than 1% | 1-3% |
| Brain | Less than 1% | 1-4% |
| Biliary Tract | Less than 1% | 1-5% |
| MMR Mutations | Protein Staining | |||
| MLH1 | MSH2 | MSH6 | PMS2 | |
| MLH1 | - | + | + | - |
| MSH2 | + | - | - | + |
| MSH6 | + | + | - | + |
| PMS2 | + | + | + | - |
| Surveillance | MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 (males) | MSHG (females) |
| Colon | Colonoscopy, every 1-2 years, starting at age 20-25 years | Colonoscopy, every 1-2 years, starting at age 30 years |
| Endometrium | Ultrasonography and CA-125, every 1-2 years, starting at age 30-35 years | Ultrasonography and CA-125, every 1-2 years, starting at age 30-35 years; consider hysterectomy after age 50 years |
| Upper Urinary Tract | Urine cytology analysis, every 1-2 years, starting at age 30-35 years, if it occurs 2 or more times in a family | Urine cytology analysis, every 1-2 years, starting at age 30-35 years, if it occurs 2 or more times in a family |
| Stomach | Gastroscopy every 1-2 years, starting at age 30-35 years, if it occurs 2 or more times in a family | Gastroscopy every 1-2 years, starting at age 30-35 years, if it occurs 2 or more times in a family |
| Stage | Tumor | Node | Metastasis | Dukes |
| Stage 1 | T1 | N0 | M0 | Dukes A |
| T2 | N0 | M0 | ||
| Stage II | T3 | N0 | M0 | Dukes B |
| T4 | N0 | M0 | ||
| Stage III | Any T | N1 | M0 | Dukes C |
| Any T | N2, N3 | Mo | ||
| Stage IV | Any T | Any N | M1 | Dukes D |

