Next Article in Journal
A Multidisciplinary Diagnostic Approach Reveals a Higher Prevalence of Indolent Systemic Mastocytosis: 15-Years’ Experience of the GISM Network
Previous Article in Journal
Anticancer Activity of Ω-6 Fatty Acids through Increased 4-HNE in Breast Cancer Cells
Previous Article in Special Issue
Machine Learning for Recurrence Prediction of Gynecologic Cancers Using Lynch Syndrome-Related Screening Markers
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Identification of Lynch Syndrome Carriers among Patients with Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma

by
Ariadna Sánchez
1,
Luis Bujanda
2,
Miriam Cuatrecasas
3,
Alex Bofill
1,
Cristina Alvarez-Urturi
4,
Goretti Hernandez
5,
Lara Aguilera
6,
Sabela Carballal
1,
Joan Llach
1,
Cristina Herrera-Pariente
1,
Mar Iglesias
7,
Liseth Rivero-Sánchez
1,
Gerhard Jung
1,
Lorena Moreno
1,
Teresa Ocaña
1,
Carolina Bayarri
1,
Maria Pellise
1,
Antoni Castells
1,
Sergi Castellví-Bel
1,
Francesc Balaguer
1 and
Leticia Moreira
1,*
add Show full author list remove Hide full author list
1
Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red en Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBEREHD), IDIBAPS (Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer), University of Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain
2
Department of Gastroenterology, Biodonostia Health Research Institute, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red en Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBEREHD), Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU), 20014 San Sebastián, Spain
3
Department of Pathology, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red en Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBEREHD), IDIBAPS (Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer), University of Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain
4
Department of Gastroenterology, IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona Hospital del Mar, 08003 Barcelona, Spain
5
Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, 38320 Tenerife, Spain
6
Department of Gastroenterology, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute, 08035 Barcelona, Spain
7
Department of Pathology, IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona Hospital del Mar, 08003 Barcelona, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2021, 13(24), 6378; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13246378
Submission received: 23 November 2021 / Accepted: 14 December 2021 / Published: 20 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Lynch Syndrome)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is associated with Lynch syndrome (LS). This is the first study to evaluate the identification of LS patients based on mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd) tumor among SBA. The authors found a 21.3% prevalence of MMRd tumors and a 10.1% prevalence of LS. A germline mutation was identified in 60% of patients with a MMRd tumor. This data suggests that universal tumor MMR testing among SBA patients should be implemented for the identification of LS.

Abstract

Background: Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is a rare disease which can be associated with Lynch syndrome (LS). LS tumors are characterized by the presence of microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or the loss of mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression. In SBA, the frequency of MMR deficient (MMRd) tumors varies from 5% to 35%. This study aims to describe the prevalence of LS carriers among patients with MMRd small bowel adenocarcinomas. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study with identification and MMR testing of all consecutive SBA between 2004 and 2020 in a multicenter Spanish study. Demographical data, tumor characteristics, follow-up and survival information were collected. Germline testing was driven by identification of MMRd tumors. Results: A total of 94 individuals diagnosed with SBA were recruited. We observed 20 (21.3%) MMRd tumors. In 9/15 (60%) patients with MMRd tumors, a pathogenic variant was identified (three MLH1, four MSH2, one MSH6 and one PMS2). Accordingly, the prevalence of LS among all SBA cases was 10.1%. Conclusions: More than one-fifth of SBA display MMRd and in more than a half is due to LS. Our data supports the implementation of universal MMR tumor testing among SBA for the identification of LS families.

1. Introduction

Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is a rare disease [1]. Although the small bowel represents 90% of the surface area from the gastrointestinal tract, these tumors represent less than 5% of all malignant gastrointestinal neoplasms [2], with a low lifetime risk (0.3%) in the general population. Symptoms are non-specific and generally appear at advanced stages. This late presentation delays diagnoses and results in poor prognoses, with a five-year overall survival of less than 30% [3]. Certain medical conditions have been described as risk factors for SBA, including celiac disease, Crohn’s disease and some hereditary cancer syndromes (i.e., familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), Peutz-Jeghers syndrome and Lynch syndrome (LS)) [4,5,6,7].
LS is caused by a germline pathogenic variant in a DNA mismatch repair (MMR) gene (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 and 3′ end of EPCAM) and is characterized by an increased risk of cancer, especially colorectal and endometrial cancer [8,9]. LS tumors are characterized by the presence of microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or the loss of MMR protein expression, both considered hallmarks of this disorder [10]. In LS patients, the SBA lifetime cumulative risk rises to 4.2% [11,12].
In SBA, the frequency of MMR deficient (MMRd) tumors varies from 5% to 35% and it is an independent good prognostic factor [13,14,15,16,17]. However, no comprehensive studies have been conducted to identify LS from SBA tumors with altered MMR protein expression.
Identifying LS carriers is of special interest as these patients and their relatives could benefit by undergoing cancer preventive strategies that reduce their cancer incidence and mortality. This study aims to identify patients with LS among those diagnosed with SBA.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patients and Study Design

From 2004 to 2020, all individuals diagnosed with a small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) at four Spanish tertiary hospitals were retrospectively recruited. Clinical and demographic data including age, gender and previous gastrointestinal disease associated with an increased risk of SBA (celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease and cancer hereditary syndromes), as well as personal and family history of cancer, were registered. Tumor characteristics were reported, including the location, diagnostic stage (TNM), histologic features and grade of differentiation. The type of treatment, follow-up and survival information were also collected. The study was approved by the Hospital Clinic de Barcelona Research Ethics Committee (reference: 2015/0864) and informed consent from individual participants was required.
All tumors underwent mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency testing by immunostaining, including the evaluation of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2 protein expression as previously described [18]. Germline MMR mutational analysis was driven by identification of tumor MMR deficiency. MMR germline genetic testing was performed on germline DNA isolated from peripheral blood leukocytes by both multiple ligation probe amplification analysis and direct sequencing if the patient was alive. When peripheral blood was not available, DNA was extracted from paraffin non-tumoral intestinal tissue. In most patients, a single gene analysis was performed based on the specific loss of protein expression; however, in a few cases, multigene testing was performed through a commercial panel (Trusight Cancer v1, Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) involving the most frequent hereditary cancer-related genes. LS was diagnosed if a germline pathogenic variant (class 4 and 5 according to InSiGHT classification guidelines) [19] in one of the mismatch repair genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 and 3′ end EPCAM deletions) was confirmed [19].

2.2. Statistical Analysis

A descriptive analysis was performed. Categorical variables were summarized by proportions and quantitative continuous variables by median and interquartile range (IQR) for non-normally distributed variables, and mean and standard deviation (SD) for normally distributed variables. When information was missing, the denominator accounted for patients with available data. Comparisons between categorical data were performed using Fisher’s exact test. For numerical data, comparisons were performed with the Student’s t-test for parametric and the Mann–Whitney U test for nonparametric data. Overall survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared with log-rank test. All calculations were performed with the 22.0 SPSS software package (IBM SPSS Statistics for Window, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY, USA). All tests were two-sided and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. General Characteristics

A total of 94 patients with SBA were diagnosed between 2004 and 2020. Demographic and clinical characteristics of the entire cohort are detailed in Table 1.
The median age at SBA diagnosis was 65.5 (IQR 53.75–75.25) years old and 52 (55.3%) patients were male. SBA risk factors were identified: two (2.1%) patients had personal history of celiac disease, five (5.3%) had inflammatory bowel disease (four Crohn’s disease and one ulcerative colitis) and one (1.1%) had familial adenomatous polyposis syndrome with a known pathogenic mutation on the APC gene. No other hereditary syndrome was previously known. Twenty-seven (28.7%) patients presented with other metachronous cancers. A family history of cancer was reported in 36 (38.3%) patients. Six cases met clinical diagnostic criteria for LS (four cases fulfilled Amsterdam II criteria and two revised Bethesda criteria) but LS was not suspected prior to the diagnosis of SBA.

3.2. Tumor Mismatch Repair Analysis

MMR tumor testing by immunohistochemistry was performed for the 94 tumors (Table 1). We identified 20 (21.3%) MMRd tumors (Figure 1). Seven (35%) tumors presented a loss of MLH1 and PSM2 protein expression, eight (8.5%) showed a loss of expression of MSH2 and MSH6, two (10%) had an isolated loss of MLH1, one (5%) had an isolated loss of MSH2 and two (10%) had an isolated loss of PMS2. For patients with MMRd tumors, the median age at diagnosis was 58 (IQR 44.5–68.75) years. One patient with a tumor with loss of expression of MLH1 and PMS2 had celiac disease; none of the others had SBA-related diseases. The majority of tumors were proximal: 10 (50%) in the duodenum, nine (45%) in the jejunum and only one (5%) in the ileum. Most MMRd tumors (11/20) were diagnosed in advanced stages (10 (50%) III, 1 (5%) IV).
In comparison with patients with MMR proficient tumors, those with MMRd tumors were significantly younger (median age 58 years vs. 68.5 years, respectively, p = 0.047) and predominantly located proximally (duodenum and jejunum 19 (95%) vs. 50 (67.6%), p = 0.020). There was no difference in either gender, stage at diagnosis or histological grade. However, MMR deficient tumors had a lower cancer mortality (25% vs. 52.7%, respectively, p = 0.042), with a significantly higher cancer-free survival (6.79 (95% confident interval (CI) 4.66–8.93) vs. 5.96 (95% CI 4.18–7.75), p = 0.048) and five-year overall survival (55% vs. 20.3%, p = 0.04) (Table 1 and Figure 2).

3.3. MMR Germline Genetic Analysis

We performed a germline genetic study in 15/20 patients with MMRd tumors. In the remaining 5/20 cases, we extracted DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded non-tumoral intestinal tissue, but the poor condition of the sample prevented the performing of a germline study.
In 9/15 (60%) patients, a pathogenic germline genetic variant was found, leading to the diagnosis of LS: three (20%) in MLH1, four (26.7%) in MSH2, one (6.7%) in MSH6 and one (6.7%) in PMS2 (Table 2).
Among the nine patients with LS, seven (77%) had personal or family history of cancer. Four (44%) individuals had a personal history of colorectal cancer under 50 years old fulfilling the revised Bethesda criteria, while one patient also fulfilled the Amsterdam II criteria. In the other three cases, there was a family history of LS-related tumors but without fulfilling the clinical diagnostic criteria for LS (Table 2).
The median age at SBA diagnosis was 51 (IQR 43–69) years. All tumors had a proximal location: four (44.5%) at the duodenum and five (55.6%) at the jejunum. Four (44.5%) patients were diagnosed in a stage II and five (55.6%) in a stage III. All cases were surgically treated but one tumor was unresectable and the patient died. A second patient died of prostate cancer progression.

4. Discussion

This study evaluates the identification of LS patients based on tumor MMR analysis among patients with SBA. Our results show a 21.3% (20/95) prevalence of MMRd tumors and a 10.1% (9/89) prevalence of LS among all SBA cases. Of patients with a MMRd tumor, a germline mutation was identified in 60% of cases.
LS is one of the most common causes of hereditary cancer [20]. These families can benefit from preventive strategies to reduce the incidence and mortality of cancer. In colorectal cancer, universal screening strategies are recommended to improve the diagnosis of LS by performing tumor MMR testing in all cases [8]. However, LS continues to be an underdiagnosed syndrome and our results support this fact. Seven patients diagnosed with a germline mutation had a personal and/or family history of colorectal cancer at early ages and fulfilled the diagnostic criteria to suspect this syndrome. However, these families were not tested for LS before the diagnosis of SBA. Accordingly, universal testing with MMR in all SBA should be recommended.
Moreover, although the incidence of SBA is low (1%) [1] in LS when compared to colorectal cancer (up to 45% lifetime risk) [21], Moreira et al. showed a 13.8% (1386/10019) of MMR deficiency colorectal tumors, with only 20% (289/1386) of them diagnosed with LS [8]. Our results show a better performance of a universal MMR testing strategy in SBA, as more than 20% were MMR deficient and up to 60% were diagnosed with a pathogenic MMR germline mutation.
On the other hand, in LS asymptomatic patients, international guidelines do not recommend systematic surveillance of the small bowel [22]. However, some studies have suggested the use of endoscopic capsule or computed tomography enteroclysis as surveillance techniques, but the low rate of SBA detection has not justified its benefit [12,23,24]. Gastroscopy with a careful duodenal exploration has also been evaluated for the prevention of both gastric and SBA, and the proximal location of SBA in LS supported by our results encourages the performance of prospective studies to evaluate its convenience.
We found significant differences when comparing MMR proficient and deficient tumors. Firstly, MMR deficient tumors are diagnosed at a younger age and at a proximal location. Secondly, although no differences were found on stage and treatment, we found a higher curative intention rate and a higher cancer-free survival. These results support the use of a universal MMR study as an independent factor for better prognosis [13,14].
Moreover, MMRd tumors can express programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and its used as a biomarker to identify immunotherapy-responsive patients [25]. In SBA, the phase II KEYNOTE-158 showed a clinical benefit of anti-PD-1 therapy with pembrolizumab among patients with a histologically confirmed advanced–unresectable and/or metastatic MMRd SBA [26]. The detection of MMR tumors has a clinical implication on treatment decision, reinforcing the importance of universal MMR testing in SBA.
We are aware of some limitations of the study, mainly due to the retrospective design. Firstly, genetic testing was not performed on all patients, although LS with MMR proficient tumors is expected to be exceptional. We must not dismiss that with next-generation gene sequencing panels; a direct analysis of patients with SBA could be also a good strategy to identify LS patients, if accessible. Secondly, the low prevalence of SBA has led to a small number of patients, although we could prove a statistical difference existed between the groups.

5. Conclusions

SBA is a rare disease with a poor prognosis. Identifying MMR deficient tumors can predict a better prognosis and identify immunotherapy-responsive patients having immediate clinical implications. Our data shows that 20% of SBA patients display MMRd and more than a half are due to LS MMR germline mutations.
Diagnosis of patients with LS is crucial to identifying pre-symptomatic relatives at risk and to establish preventive measures to decrease morbidity and mortality per cancer.
In this low-prevalence disease, we encourage universal tumor MMR testing implementation to improve treatment decisions and to increase the identification of LS families.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S. and L.M. (Leticia Moreira); methodology, A.S. and L.M. (Leticia Moreira); software, A.S. and L.M. (Leticia Moreira); validation, A.S. and L.M. (Leticia Moreira); formal analysis, A.S. and L.M. (Leticia Moreira); supervision, A.S. and L.M. (Leticia Moreira); investigation, A.S., L.B., C.A.-U., G.H. and L.A.; data curation, A.S. and A.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S., A.B., C.H.-P. and L.M. (Leticia Moreira); writing—review, editing and visualization: A.S., L.B., M.C., A.B., C.A-U., G.H., L.A., S.C., J.L., C.H.-P., M.I., L.R.-S., G.J., L.M. (Lorena Moreno), T.O., C.B., M.P., A.C., S.C.-B., F.B., L.M. (Leticia Moreira). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the CERCA Program (Generalitat de Catalunya) and Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca (Generalitat de Catalunya, GRPRE 2017SGR21, GRC 2017SGR653). CIBEREHD is funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Hospital Clínic in Barcelona (register number 2015/0864, date of approval 22/10/2015).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Department of Pathology for their collaboration and technical support. The authors are sincerely grateful to all centers for their collaboration in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aparicio, T.; Zaanan, A.; Mary, F.; Afchain, P.; Manfredi, S.; Evans, T.R.J. Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma. Gastroenterol. Clin. N. Am. 2016, 45, 447–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Neugut, A.I.; Jacobson, J.S.; Suh, S.; Mukherjee, R.; Arber, N. The epidemiology of cancer of the small bowel. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 1998, 7, 243–251. [Google Scholar]
  3. Brueckl, W.M.; Heinze, E.; Milsmann, C.; Wein, A.; Koebnick, C.; Jung, A.; Croner, R.S.; Brabletz, T.; Kirchner, T.; Hahn, E.G.; et al. Prognostic significance of microsatellite instability in curatively resected adenocarcinoma of the small intestine. Cancer Lett. 2004, 203, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chirita-Emandi, A.; Andreescu, N.; Zimbru, C.G.; Tutac, P.; Arghirescu, S.; Serban, M.; Puiu, M. Challenges in reporting pathogenic/potentially pathogenic variants in 94 cancer predisposing genes-in pediatric patients screened with NGS panels. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Shenoy, S. Genetic risks and familial associations of small bowel carcinoma. World J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2016, 8, 509–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Aparicio, T.; Zaanan, A.; Svrcek, M.; Laurent-Puig, P.; Carrere, N.; Manfredi, S.; Locher, C.; Afchain, P. Small bowel adenocarcinoma: Epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis and treatment. Dig. Liver Dis. 2014, 46, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Pan, S.Y.; Morrison, H. Epidemiology of cancer of the small intestine. World J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2011, 3, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Moreira, L.; Balaguer, F.; Lindor, N.; De La Chapelle, A.; Hampel, H.; Aaltonen, L.A.; Hopper, J.L.; Le Marchand, L.; Gallinger, S.; Newcomb, P.A.; et al. Identification of Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer. JAMA 2012, 308, 1555–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Lynch, H.T.; Snyder, C.L.; Shaw, T.G.; Heinen, C.D.; Hitchins, M.P. Milestones of Lynch syndrome: 1895–2015. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2015, 15, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Moreira, L.; Muñoz, J.; Cuatrecasas, M.; Quintanilla, I.; Leoz, M.L.; Carballal, S.; Ocaña, T.; López-Cerón, M.; Pellise, M.; Castellví-Bel, S.; et al. Prevalence of Somatic MutL Homolog 1 Promoter Hypermethylation in Lynch Syndrome Colorectal Cancer. Cancer 2015, 121, 1395–1404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ten Kate, G.L.; Kleibeuker, J.H.; Nagengast, F.M.; Craanen, M.; Cats, A.; Menko, F.H.; Vasen, H.F.A. Is surveillance of the small bowel indicated for Lynch syndrome families? Gut 2007, 56, 1198–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Haanstra, J.F.; Al-Toma, A.; Dekker, E.; Vanhoutvin, S.A.L.W.; Nagengast, F.M.; Mathus-Vliegen, E.M.; Van Leerdam, M.E.; De Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel, W.H.; Sanduleanu, S.; Veenendaal, R.A.; et al. Prevalence of small-bowel neoplasia in Lynch syndrome assessed by video capsule endoscopy. Gut 2015, 64, 1578–1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Planck, M.; Ericson, K.; Piotrowska, Z.; Halvarsson, B.; Rambech, E.; Nilbert, M. Microsatellite instability and expression of MLH1 and MSH2 in carcinomas of the small intestine. Cancer 2003, 97, 1551–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Aparicio, T.; Svrcek, M.; Zaanan, A.; Beohou, E.; Laforest, A.; Afchain, P.; Mitry, E.; Taieb, J.; Di Fiore, F.; Gornet, J.M.; et al. Small bowel adenocarcinoma phenotyping, a clinicobiological prognostic study. Br. J. Cancer 2013, 109, 3057–3066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Wheeler, J.M.D.; Warren, B.F.; Mortensen, N.J.M.C.; Kim, H.C.; Biddolph, S.C.; Elia, G.; Beck, N.E.; Williams, G.T.; Shepherd, N.A.; Bateman, A.C.; et al. An insight into the genetic pathway of adenocarcinoma of the small intestine. Gut 2002, 50, 218–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Warth, A.; Kloor, M.; Schirmacher, P.; Bla, H. Genetics and epigenetics of small bowel adenocarcinoma: The interactions of CIN, MSI, and CIMP. Mod. Pathol. 2011, 24, 564–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Schulmann, K.; Brasch, F.E.; Kunstmann, E.; Engel, C.; Pagenstecher, C.; Vogelsang, H.; Krüger, S.; Vogel, T.; Knaebel, H.P.; Rüschoff, J.; et al. HNPCC-associated small bowel cancer: Clinical and molecular characteristics. Gastroenterology 2005, 128, 590–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pérez-Carbonell, L.; Ruiz-Ponte, C.; Guarinos, C.; Alenda, C.; Payá, A.; Brea, A.; Egoavil, C.M.; Castillejo, A.; Barberá, V.M.; Bessa, X.; 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, 865–872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Thompson, B.A.; Spurdle, A.B.; Plazzer, J.P.; Greenblatt, M.S.; Akagi, K.; Al-Mulla, F.; Bapat, B.; Bernstein, I.; Capellá, G.; Den Dunnen, J.T.; et al. Application of a 5-tiered scheme for standardized classification of 2360 unique mismatch repair gene variants in the InSiGHT locus-specific database. Nat. Genet. 2014, 46, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Nagy, R.; Sweet, K.; Eng, C. Highly penetrant hereditary cancer syndromes. Oncogene 2004, 23, 6445–6470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Møller, P.; Seppälä, T.; Bernstein, I.; Holinski-Feder, E.; Sala, P.; Evans, D.G.; Lindblom, A.; Macrae, F.; Blanco, I.; Sijmons, R.; et al. Cancer incidence and survival in Lynch syndrome patients receiving colonoscopic and gynaecological surveillance: First report from the prospective Lynch syndrome database. Gut 2015, 66, 464–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. van Leerdam, M.E.; Roos, V.H.; van Hooft, J.E.; Balaguer, F.; Dekker, E.; Kaminski, M.F.; Latchford, A.; Neumann, H.; Ricciardiello, L.; Rupinska, M.; et al. Endoscopic management of Lynch syndrome and of familial risk of colorectal cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2019, 51, 1082–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Haanstra, J.F.; Kleibeuker, J.H.; Koornstra, J.J. Role of new endoscopic techniques in Lynch syndrome. Fam. Cancer 2013, 12, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Saurin, J.C.; Pilleul, F.; Soussan, E.B.; Maniere, T.; D’Halluin, P.N.; Gaudric, M.; Cellier, C.; Heresbach, D.; Gaudin, J.L.; Capsule Commission of the French Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SFED). Small-bowel capsule endoscopy diagnoses early and advanced neoplasms in asymptomatic patients with Lynch syndrome. Endoscopy 2010, 42, 1057–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Noh, B.J.; Hong, S.M.; Jun, S.Y.; Eom, D.W. Prognostic implications of immune classification in a multicentre cohort of patients with small intestinal adenocarcinoma. Pathology 2020, 52, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Marabelle, A.; Le, D.T.; Ascierto, P.A.; Di Giacomo, A.M.; De Jesus-Acosta, A.; Delord, J.P.; Geva, R.; Gottfried, M.; Penel, N.; Hansen, A.R.; et al. Efficacy of Pembrolizumab in Patients With Noncolorectal High Microsatellite Instability/ Mismatch Repair-Deficient Cancer: Results From the Phase II KEYNOTE-158 Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 38, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Small bowel adenocarcinoma mismatch repair (MMR) testing by immunostaining (200×) showing: (A) MSH1 deficient protein, (B) MSH2 proficient protein, (C) MSH6 proficient protein and (D) PMS2 deficient protein.
Figure 1. Small bowel adenocarcinoma mismatch repair (MMR) testing by immunostaining (200×) showing: (A) MSH1 deficient protein, (B) MSH2 proficient protein, (C) MSH6 proficient protein and (D) PMS2 deficient protein.
Cancers 13 06378 g001
Figure 2. Kaplan-Meyer curves comparing the small-bowel-adenocarcinoma-free survival rate of individuals with a mismatch repair (MMR) proficient and MMR deficient tumors. MMR deficient tumors have a higher mean cancer-free survival: 6.79 (4.66–8.93) years compared to 5.96 (4.18–7.75) years in MMR proficient tumors (p = 0.048).
Figure 2. Kaplan-Meyer curves comparing the small-bowel-adenocarcinoma-free survival rate of individuals with a mismatch repair (MMR) proficient and MMR deficient tumors. MMR deficient tumors have a higher mean cancer-free survival: 6.79 (4.66–8.93) years compared to 5.96 (4.18–7.75) years in MMR proficient tumors (p = 0.048).
Cancers 13 06378 g002
Table 1. Patient and tumor characteristics compared between MMR tumor profile.
Table 1. Patient and tumor characteristics compared between MMR tumor profile.
CharacteristicsMMR Proficient Tumor (n = 74)MMR Deficient
Tumor (n = 20)
p ValueTotal Patients (n = 94)
Male sex, n (%)44 (59.5)12 (60)0.13652 (55.3)
Clinical diagnostic criteria for LS *, n (%)2 (2.7)4 (20)0.0186 (6.4)
Median age at diagnosis, y (IQR)68.5 (54.8–77)58 (44.5–69)0.04765.5 (53.8–75.3)
Stage 1
I–II, n (%)30 (45.5)9 (45)39 (45.3)
III–IV, n (%)36 (54.5)11 (55)47 (54.7)
Histological grade 0.915
G1, n (%)18 (27.3)5 (25)23 (26.7)
G2, n (%)25 (37.9)7 (35)32 (37.2)
G3, n (%)23 (34.8)8 (40)31 (36)
Location 0.020
Duodenum, n (%)31 (42.5)10 (50)41 (44.1)
Jejunum, n (%)19 (26)9 (45)28 (30.1)
Ileum, n (%)23 (31.5)1 (5)24 (25.8)
Surgical Intervention, n (%)65 (87.8)20 (100)0.19765 (69.5)
With curative intention, n (%)47 (63.5)18 (90)0.028
Chemotherapy, n (%)36 (48.6)11 (55)0.80247 (50)
SBAmortality, n (%)39 (52.7)5 (25)0.04244 (46.8)
Median ageSBA mortality, y (IQR)72 (58–80)60 (58.5–85.5)0.95671.5 (58.25–80)
Five-year overall survival (%)15 (20.3)11 (55)0.00426 (27.7)
Mean overall survival, y (95% CI)7.121 (5.20–9.04)6.57 (4.84–8.30)0.0737.286 (5.69–8.88)
Five-year SBA-free survival (%)12 (16.2)10 (50)0.00522 (23.4)
Mean SBA-free survival, y (95% CI)5.96 (4.18–7.75)6.79 (4.66–8.93)0.0486.86 (5.21–8.51)
* Amsterdam and or Bethesda criteria. n, number; MMR, mismatch repair system; LS, Lynch syndrome; y, years; SBA, small bowel adenocarcinoma.
Table 2. Patients and tumor characteristics from MMR deficient tumors.
Table 2. Patients and tumor characteristics from MMR deficient tumors.
SexSBA Risk Factors Family History of CancerMetachronous
Neoplasm
Age at Diagnosis (y) LocationTNMStageDeficient MMR ProteinsGermline MMR StudyEvolution
MaleNoTwo 1st-degree relatives: bladder 40 y-o and pancreatic cancer 38 y-oCRC 43 y-o 51JejunumT3N1M0IIIMLH1/PMS2MLH1
(c.1644 C>G; p. Tyr548Ter)
Alive
FemaleNo1st-degree relative CRC 33 y-o;
3rd-degree relative gastric cancer 45 y-o
No67JejunumT3N0M0IIMLH1/PMS2MLH1
(c.350C>T; p. Thr117Met)
Alive
FemaleNoNoCRC 49 y-o69DuodenumT3N0M0IIMLH1/PMS2MLH1
(c.306+5G>A)
Alive
MaleNoTwo 1st-degree relatives CRC: 23 and 50 y-oCRC 41 y-o42JejunumT4N1M0IIIMSH2/MSH6MSH2
(c.1861C>T; p. Arg621Ter)
Alive
MaleNoNoNo44DuodenumT4N1M0IIIMSH2/MSH6MSH2
(c.927dupAG)
Dead
MaleNoAmsterdam II Criteria: >3 relatives with CRC and/or other LS spectrum cancersCRC 32 y-o,
ureter cancer 44 y-o
prostate cancer 65 y-o
69DuodenumT3N1M0IIIMSH2/MSH6MSH2
(c.1387-?_661+?del)
Dead
MaleNo1st-degree relative CRC 67 y-oNo46IleumT4N1M0IIIMSH2/MSH6MSH2
(c. 842C>G; p. Ser281Ter)
Alive
FemaleNo1st-degree relative
CRC 60 y-o
Intestinal lymphoma82JejunumT3N0M0IIMSH2/MSH6MSH6
(c.2188dupT; p. Tyr730LeufsTer26)
Alive
FemaleNo1st-degree relative bladder cancer 66 y-o; 2nd-degree relative ureter cancer 67aNo39JejunumT3N0M0IIPMS2PMS2
(c.1831dup; p. Ile611fs)
Alive
FemaleCeliac DiseaseFour 2nd-degree relatives
CRC > 85 y-o
No60JejunumT3N0M0IIMLH1/PMS2NegativeAlive
FemaleNoNoNo71JejunumT3N0M0IIMLH1NegativeAlive
FemaleNo1st-degree relative endometrium 63 y-oFollicular lymphoma37DuodenumT3N0M0IIMLH1/PMS2NegativeAlive
MaleNoTwo 1st-degree relatives: CRC 87 y-o, laryngeal cancer 65 y-oNo64DuodenumT3N2M0IIIMLH1/PMS2NegativeAlive
FemaleNoNoNo57DuodenumT4N1M1IVMSH2/MSH6NegativeDead
FemaleNoThree 2nd-degree relatives: leukemia, ovarian cancer, renal cancerNo43DuodenumT4N0M0IIMSH2/MSH6NegativeAlive
FemaleNoRelative prostate cancer 62 y-oNo75JejunumT4N2M0IIIMLH1NADead
FemaleNoNoCRC 42 y-o, Hodgkin lymphoma 55 y-o59DuodenumT3N1M0IIIMLH1/PMS2NADead
MaleNoRelative prostate cancerNo90JejunumT3N1M0IIIMSH2NADead
MaleNo3rd-degree relative hepatic cancerNo53DuodenumT3N1M0IIIMSH2/MSH6NAAlive
FemaleNo1st-degree relative unknown cancer 54 y-o; two 2nd-degree relatives: gastric and intestinal cancerNo56DuodenumT3N0M0IIPMS2NADead
MMR, mismatch repair system; SBA, small bowel adenocarcinoma; y, years; y-o, years old; CRC, colorectal cancer; NA, not available.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sánchez, A.; Bujanda, L.; Cuatrecasas, M.; Bofill, A.; Alvarez-Urturi, C.; Hernandez, G.; Aguilera, L.; Carballal, S.; Llach, J.; Herrera-Pariente, C.; et al. Identification of Lynch Syndrome Carriers among Patients with Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma. Cancers 2021, 13, 6378. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13246378

AMA Style

Sánchez A, Bujanda L, Cuatrecasas M, Bofill A, Alvarez-Urturi C, Hernandez G, Aguilera L, Carballal S, Llach J, Herrera-Pariente C, et al. Identification of Lynch Syndrome Carriers among Patients with Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma. Cancers. 2021; 13(24):6378. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13246378

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sánchez, Ariadna, Luis Bujanda, Miriam Cuatrecasas, Alex Bofill, Cristina Alvarez-Urturi, Goretti Hernandez, Lara Aguilera, Sabela Carballal, Joan Llach, Cristina Herrera-Pariente, and et al. 2021. "Identification of Lynch Syndrome Carriers among Patients with Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma" Cancers 13, no. 24: 6378. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13246378

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop