Next Article in Journal
Endotheliitis and Endothelial Dysfunction in Patients with COVID-19: Its Role in Thrombosis and Adverse Outcomes
Next Article in Special Issue
Dominantly Inherited Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer Not Caused by MMR Genes
Previous Article in Journal
Medical Treatment of Advanced Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms
Previous Article in Special Issue
Feasibility of Gynaecologist Led Lynch Syndrome Testing in Women with Endometrial Cancer
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Spectrum and Frequency of Tumors, Cancer Risk and Survival in Chilean Families with Lynch Syndrome: Experience of the Implementation of a Registry

1
Oncology and Molecular Genetic Laboratory, Coloproctology Unit, Clínica Las Condes, Santiago 7591047, Chile
2
Cancer Institute, Clínica Las Condes, Santiago 7591047, Chile
3
Colorectal Unit, Department of Surgery, Hospital San José, Osorno 5311523, Chile
4
Genetic Section, University of Chile Clinic Hospital, Santiago 8380456, Chile
5
Servicio de Neurología Infantil, Hospital de Puerto Montt, Puerto Montt 5507798, Chile
6
Department of Tumor Biology, Institute for Cancer Research, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, 0369 Oslo, Norway
7
Department of Surgery, Finis Terrae University, Santiago 7501015, Chile
8
Instituto de Investigación, Universidad Católica de Trujillo, Chimbote 02800, Peru
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9(6), 1861; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061861
Submission received: 15 May 2020 / Revised: 4 June 2020 / Accepted: 8 June 2020 / Published: 15 June 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genetic Epidemiology of Inherited Cancers)

Abstract

:
Lynch syndrome (LS) is associated with the highest risk of colorectal (CRC) and several extracolonic cancers. In our effort to characterize LS families from Latin America, this study aimed to describe the spectrum of neoplasms and cancer risk by gender, age and gene, and survival in 34 Chilean LS families. Of them, 59% harbored path_MLH1, 23% path_MSH2, 12% path_PMS2 and 6% path_EPCAM variants. A total of 866 individuals at risk were identified, of which 213 (24.6%) developed 308 neoplasms. In males, CRC was the most common cancer (72.6%), while females showed a greater frequency of extracolonic cancers (58.4%), including uterus and breast (p < 0.0001). The cumulative incidence of extracolonic cancers was higher in females than males (p = 0.001). Path_MLH1 variants are significantly more associated with the development of CRC than extracolonic tumors (59.5% vs. 40.5%) when compared to path_MSH2 (47.5% vs. 52.5%) variants (p = 0.05018). The cumulative incidence of CRC was higher in path_MLH1/path_MSH2 carriers compared to path_PMS2 carriers (p = 0.03). In addition, path_MSH2 carriers showed higher risk of extracolonic tumors (p = 0.002). In conclusion, this study provides a snapshot of the LS profile from Chile and the current LS-associated diagnostic practice and output in Chile. Categorizing cancer risks associated with each population is relevant in the genetic counselling of LS patients.

1. Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cause of cancer death in developed countries [1]. In Chile, DEIS-MINSAL (Department of Statistics and Health Information, Ministry of Health, 2016) reported 2362 deaths by CRC, being the third most common cause of cancer mortality followed by stomach cancer (3350 deaths) and trachea, bronchia and lung cancer (3162 deaths) [2]. During the last two decades, a progressive increase in mortality rates (116%) has been observed [3], probably due to risk factors related to increases in life expectancy, urban residence, lifestyle, nutrition and ethnic background.
Heredity represents a major cause of CRC, with at least 20% of cases estimated to develop due to genetic factors and about 5% linked to inherited variants in cancer-predisposing genes [4,5,6,7]. Lynch syndrome (LS) is caused by a defective mismatch repair (MMR) system due to the presence of germline pathogenic variants in at least one of the MMR genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2 or to deletions in the 3′ end of the EPCAM gene [8,9]. Such variants are here referred to as path_MMR, and, when specifying one of the genes, as path_MLH1, path_MSH2, path_MSH6, path_PMS2 or path_EPCAM. Path_MLH1 and path_MSH2 variants are responsible for around 90% of the pathogenic variants identified in LS families while 7–10% are due to path_MSH6 variants and less than 5% to path_PMS2 variants. In addition, deletions in the EPCAM gene, which deactivate MSH2, account for approximately 1% of LS families [10,11].
Recent studies have reported that path_MMR carriers exhibit distinct patterns of cancer risk and survival according to affected gene, gender and age [11,12,13]. Path_MLH1 and path_MSH2 carriers showed similar high risk for CRC, endometrial and ovarian cancer, while path_MSH2 carriers had higher risk for other cancers such as upper gastrointestinal, urinary tract, prostate and brain. On the other hand, path_MSH6 carriers showed high endometrial cancer risk and a modestly increased CRC risk, and path_PMS2 carriers showed a lower risk of any cancer [13]. Other tumor types, e.g., breast and pancreatic cancer, can come under discussion if represented as sporadic tumors within these families; they may indeed develop as part of the syndrome. This is suggested based on studies that showed lower MMR protein expression in extracolonic tumors from LS patients and their increased risk of developing these tumors in path_MMR carriers [14,15,16,17].
Several efforts have been made towards the genetic characterization of LS in Latin America [18,19,20,21], although there remains to be universal access to the genetic testing of all populations from our region or a better clinical characterization, which is relevant for the management and surveillance of high-risk patients and their families. Two studies from Brazil described the spectrum of tumors in LS families, showing that CRC was the most frequent, followed by extracolonic tumors, which were more frequent in women [22,23]. Some extracolonic tumors including breast and prostate have not been formally associated with LS [24,25]. In order to evaluate if the spectrum of CRC and extracolonic tumors may vary according to population, gene and gender, we aimed to describe the clinical and molecular characteristics of Chilean families with LS.

2. Methods

2.1. Hereditary Colorectal Cancer Registry from Clinica Las Condes

A total of 125 Chilean families with a suspected clinical diagnosis of LS were recorded in our Hereditary Colorectal Cancer Registry in Clinica Las Condes (Santiago, Chile), which was started in 2003 (Figure S1). The registry includes families of patients with a diagnosis of CRC who were treated at our institution or who were referred by physicians from other health centers throughout Chile.
LS families were enrolled according to the Amsterdam (AMS) criteria (I or II) [26,27], the Bethesda guidelines [28,29] and, since 2011, as a result of universal tumor screening for CRC [24]. The collected information included personal and family history, cancer diagnosis, age at onset, birth date, death date, pathology data and the results of DNA testing. All registered tumors were based on verbal information during interviews of the index cases. Clinical and pathological reports were recorded in cases where they were available.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Clinica Las Condes (project identification code O022018). All patients gave informed consent for their participation in the study.
Pedigree was constructed using the Progeny® software (Progeny genetics, Delray Beach, FL, USA), including information from all relatives in at least the first and second degrees of maternal and paternal lineage. The available information on family history of cancer (colorectal and extracolonic) was documented for each proband, obtaining between 3 and 5 generations per family.

2.2. Genetic Analysis

Peripheral blood samples were collected into Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) tubes, and genomic DNA was isolated using the MagNA Pure automated extraction system (Roche Diagnostics, Indeanapolis, IN, USA). In 2004–2014, the screening for pathogenic variants of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2 was performed using PCR amplification followed by single strand conformation polymorphisms (SSCP) and/or direct sequencing in a DNA automatic sequencer (Model ABI-3100, Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) as previously described [18]. For patients with no path_MMR identified, their samples were investigated for large genomic rearrangements involving MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 and EPCAM by multiplex ligation probe amplification (MLPA) using SALSA P003 and P072 kits according to the manufacturer’s specifications (MRC-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Electropherograms were analyzed with the Coffalyser software. After 2015, newly enrolled families were studied by next generation sequencing (NGS) using a 5-cancer-associated genes panel (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 and EPCAM) (Invitae, San Francisco, CA, USA).

2.3. MMR Variant Nomenclature and Classification

The nomenclature guidelines of the Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) [30] were used to describe the detected MMR variants. Variants were described by considering the following reference sequences: NM_000249.2 (MLH1), NM_000251.2 (MSH2) and NM_001322014.1 (PMS2). The MMR variants were classified, according to the International Society of Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumors (InSIGHT), into the following categories: class 5 (pathogenic), class 4 (likely pathogenic), class 3 (uncertain), class 2 (likely not pathogenic) and class 1 (not pathogenic) [6].
The recurrence or novelty of the identified variants was established by interrogating four databases: the InSIGHT database (accessed via the Leiden Open Variation Database (LOVD)), the Universal Mutation Database (UMD), ClinVar and the Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD), in March 2020.

2.4. Study Population

From the Hereditary Colorectal Cancer Registry, we selected all 34 LS families with an identified class 4 or 5 path_MMR variant. To characterize the type and frequency of neoplasms, we included family members (first- and second-degree relatives of the index case) who both had and had not performed genetic testing. The last revision of the information from the included families (including the review of death certificates in the national registry) was performed in March 2020.
In order to analyze the LS families, we defined two groups:
Group 1 included all individuals at risk of cancer considering cases with a path_MMR variant, obligate carriers (who had 100% probability for being carriers due to their position in the pedigree in relation to relatives with proven mutation) and probable carriers by state (who had 50% probability of being carriers and had cancer). Because this group showed a high number of tumors, an initial characterization of the type and frequency of neoplasms was carried out.
Group 2 included all proven mutation and obligate carriers with or without cancer who were under follow-up for their disease and family antecedents. In this group, we estimated the cumulative incidence of the first cancer (CRC and extracolonic) and the overall survival, defined as the time from diagnosis date until the date of death from any cause.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The clinical characteristics were described using frequency distributions for categorical variables. A chi-square test was applied to determine the relationship between type of cancer and gender or path_MMR variants. All reported p values were two-sided, and statistical significance was set to the 95% level (p  <  0.05).
The cumulative incidence of first CRC and extracolonic cancer diagnosed before 75 years of age was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method and we compared the incidences curve using a log-rank test. Likewise, overall survival was estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method, and to minimize competitive causes of death, we restricted this calculation to cases diagnosed before 65 years of age. The results were obtained with a confidence interval of 95% and a p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The analyses were made using R Project version 3.5.3.
Regarding ethical approval and consent to participate, all genetic tests were done with appropriate informed consent according to local requirements for healthcare and/or research.

3. Results

3.1. Genetic Characterization of LS Families

From 125 families tested for MMR genes, we identified 34/125 (27%) carrying a class 4 or 5 path_MMR variant (Table 1). When the clinical criteria were considered, 27/34 (79%), 5/34 (15%) and 2/34 (6%) of the families fulfilled the Amsterdam criteria, Bethesda guidelines and universal screening criteria, respectively. More than half of the families harbored path_MLH1 variants (n = 20, 59%), followed by eight families with path_MSH2 (23%), four families with path_PMS2 (12%) and two families with path_EPCAM (6%). For further analysis, path_EPCAM families were grouped with path_MSH2 families. Notably, we did not identify path_MSH6 variants in our cohort. Out of the 27 different pathogenic variants identified in these families, 11 (40.7%) were truncating, seven were intronic changes, seven large deletions and two non-synonymous amino acid changes. The schematic representation of path_MMR variants according to localization and type is summarized in Figure 1.
Pedigree information from five, four and three generations was available in 44% (15/34), 47% (16/34) and 9% (3/34) of the families, respectively. Amongst all the individuals at risk, 866 relatives were identified with an average of 25 members per family (range 8–81). Of them, 213 individuals (24.6%) were diagnosed with 308 different neoplasms in total (mean 1.44 neoplasms per patient). These patients were defined as Group 1 and included path_MMR and obligate carriers as well as probable carriers by state. Fifty-one percent were female, and the mean age at any first cancer diagnosis was 45.1 years (Table 2). The workflow is summarized in Figure 2.

3.2. Clinicopathologic Features of LS Families

In Group 1, 308 different neoplasms were identified in 213 individuals. CRC was the most frequent tumor (170/308; 55%) identified in 140 individuals. The CRC anatomic distribution in the cecum (20.5%), appendix (1.3%), ascending colon (23.1%), hepatic flexure (6.4%), transverse colon (11.5%), splenic flexure (3.8%), descending colon (11.5%), sigmoid (11.5%), recto-sigmoid joint (2.6%) and rectum (7.7%) was identified. Thus, two thirds of tumors were diagnosed in the proximal colon. Moreover, 138/308 (45%) extracolonic tumors were identified in 111 subjects. Of these, 33, 20, 17, 13, and 13 had uterus, breast, stomach, urological (kidney/bladder/ureter) and skin cancer, respectively (Table 3).
As shown in Table S1, 57/213 patients developed synchronous and/or metachronous tumors. Thirty-six patients (16.9%) developed two neoplasms, while 4.1%, 3.6%, 1.4% and 0.5% developed three, four, five and six neoplasms, respectively. Most of the patients (14/57) developed colorectal synchronic and/or metachronous tumors, followed by colorectal and uterus (eight patients) and colorectal and skin (seven patients) cancers. It is important to mention that the time of diagnosis of metachronous neoplasms was performed predominantly between one and ten years after the first cancer diagnosis (31/74 neoplasms; 41%); however, some patients developed neoplasms up to 40 years after the first cancer.

3.3. Spectrum and Frequency of Tumors by Gene, Gender and Age

In Group 1, individuals at risk of cancer from families with path_MLH1 variants mainly developed CRC (116/195; 59.5%) rather than extracolonic tumors (79/195; 40.5%), while individuals from families with path_MSH2 showed CRC (47/99; 47.5%) and extracolonic tumors (52/99; 52.5%) equally (Table 3) (chi-square test p = 0.05018). In the case of path_PMS2, the frequency of CRC (7/14; 50%) and extracolonic tumors (7/14; 50%) was similar. Table 3 describes the type and frequency of the different extracolonic tumors according to genotype. In addition, extracolonic cancers without a previous history of CRC were identified in 35%, 52% and 45% of individuals from families with path_MLH1, MSH2 and PMS2 variants, respectively.
When analyzing the frequency of tumors by gender in Group 1, 135 neoplasms in 104 men (1.29 neoplasms per man) and 173 neoplasms in 109 females (1.58 neoplasms per woman) were identified (Figure 3). In males, CRC was more frequent (98/135; 73.2%) than extracolonic tumors (37/135; 26.8%), and the most common extracolonic cancers included stomach (11 cases), skin (5 cases) and prostate (5 cases). On the other hand, extracolonic tumors (101/173; 57.6%) were more frequent than CRC (72/173; 42.4%) in women, including gynecological tumors (uterus and ovary with 33 and 8 cases, respectively), breast (20 cases) and urological (10 cases). A significant association between gender and type of cancer (CRC or extracolonic) was found (chi-square test p < 0.0001) (Table 2). Importantly, 84/213 (39%) individuals developed extracolonic cancer as the first tumor.
Brain cancer was the earliest diagnosed neoplasm at mean 18 y (range 10–36). CRC and ovarian cancer were diagnosed at an average age of 44 years, followed by uterus, pancreas and stomach cancer, which were diagnosed at 48, 52 and 53 years, respectively. We also identified late onset tumors, including breast (mean 61 years), skin (64 years) and urological (66 years) cancer (Table S2).

3.4. Characterization of Path_MMR Carriers

Due to Group 1’s inclusion of family members with unknown genetic status, we analyzed the frequency of tumors including only individuals with path_MMR variants (Group 2). Mutational status was defined in 193/866 relatives at risk through genetic analysis (188) and considering obligate carriers (5), among whom, 109 (56%) were carriers and 84 (44%) non-carriers of path_MMR variants. In Group 2, 45 (41%) were asymptomatic and 64 (59%) had developed cancer. Among the individuals with cancer, 123 different neoplasms were diagnosed (73 in females and 50 in males); the mean age at any first cancer diagnosis was 40.8 years old (Table 2; Figure 2). Sixteen patients died of LS at an average age of 58.5 years (range 39–87). At the time of writing, the current average age of living patients with cancer was 57 years (range 27–81) and of asymptomatic patients, 37.6 years (17–70).

3.5. Path_ MMR Carriers: Tumor Spectrum, Cumulative Incidence and Survival Analysis

In the path_MMR carriers (Group 2), 90% of the tumors identified in men corresponded to CRC, while a lower frequency of CRC (58.9%) and a wide spectrum of extracolonic tumors (41.1%) was identified in females (chi-square test p = 0.00017), including gynecological (uterus (8%) and ovary (7%)), breast (8%) and skin (6%) cancers. CRC was the most frequent cancer (74% in path_MLH1 carriers and 66% in path_MSH2 carriers, chi-square test p = 0.3506) and extracolonic tumors were more recurrent in path_MSH2 carriers (Table 2 and Table 3). These results are in line with those observed in Group 1.
The cumulative incidence analysis of CRC and extracolonic first cancer before 75 years by gender or path_MMR was calculated via Kaplan–Meier analysis in Group 2 (Figure 4). Extracolonic cancer risk was significantly greater in females compared to males (log-rank test p = 0.001), with a cumulative risk of 31.3–71.7% vs. 2.7–24.3% at the age of 50–70, respectively. However, no significant difference in CRC risk according to gender was found (Figure 4A, Table 4).
Path_MLH1 and path_MSH2 carriers showed a higher cumulative CRC risk than path_PMS2 carriers (Figure 4B, log-rank test MLH1 vs. PMS2 p = 0.03; MSH2 vs. PMS2 p = 0.03). The highest extracolonic cancer risk was found in path_MSH2 carriers (log-rank test p = 0.02) (Figure 4B, Table 4). Due to uterus and ovary cancers being the most recurrent tumors in females, we analyzed the cumulative incidence of CRC and gynecological cancer according to genotype. Herein, we described that the risk of gynecological cancer was associated with MSH2 (log-rank test MLH1 vs. MSH2 p = 0.02) while no significant difference in CRC risk according to genotype was found (Figure 4C, Table 4).
Five- and ten-year crude survival analysis, focusing on the first CRC and extracolonic cancer diagnosed before 65 years of age, was performed. Eighty-nine percent of patients survived ten years or more after CRC diagnosis (95% CI 81.7–97.8) and 83.3% (95% CI 58.3–100) did so for uterus cancer.

4. Discussion

A more detailed characterization of gene- and gender-specific risk estimates in LS is crucial for updating clinical guidelines for the stratified surveillance, management and prevention of colorectal and extracolonic cancers [24,25]. Additionally, genetic background and environmental factors could explain the different phenotypes in different populations. Here, we present for the first time the tumor spectrum, incidence and survival, according to family history, clinical characteristics, gene and gender in families with LS from a Hereditary Colorectal Cancer Registry in Clinica Las Condes in Chile.
Our group has reported the profile of pathogenic variants in Chilean LS families since 2010 [18,30,31]. Genetic testing was initially performed for the MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, EPCAM and PMS2 genes using SSCP, Sanger sequencing and MLPA analysis, in families that fulfilled the Amsterdam criteria (I or II) and the revised Bethesda guidelines. With the advent of next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, we have included NGS panel testing and the implementation of universal tumor screening for CRC in our genetic testing practice. Currently, we have identified 27 pathogenic variants in MMR genes in 34 LS families.
The distribution of pathogenic variants among the MMR genes in Chilean families showed a higher frequency in path_MLH1 (59%), followed by path_MSH2 (23%), path_PMS2 (12%) and path_EPCAM (6%) variants. These results are in line with international databases and studies of Latin American LS families that have described a higher frequency of pathogenic variants in MLH1 and MSH2 genes [31,33]. Interestingly, in our cohort, no pathogenic variant was identified in MSH6, but on the other hand, we identified a higher frequency of path_PMS2 variants and EPCAM deletions compared to those previously described [9,34]. This may be explained by the genetic differences between different populations or influences at the time of colonization, such as the Amerindian genetic component [18]. Path_MSH6 variants are associated with a lower penetrance of CRC than MLH1 and MSH2 and an increased risk of endometrial cancer in females [35]; these characteristics could affect the identification of path_MSH6 carrier families in our registry based on LS clinical criteria. For path_PMS2 variants, we note that two out of four families were enrolled under universal screening and did not meet the classic Amsterdam or Bethesda criteria. This is consistent with the fact that variants in this gene are related to lower penetrance, cases of CRC at later age and higher risk of extracolonic cancer, decreasing the probability of meeting the classic clinical criteria.
In this study, we described how individuals at risk of cancer (Group 1) show a higher frequency of CRC in path_MLH1 than in path_MSH2 families (59% vs. 47%, p = 0.05018), along with a high risk of extracolonic cancer in path_MSH2 carriers (Group 2), similarly to other studies [36,37,38,39]. In women, extracolonic tumors were more frequent than in men (58% vs. 27%, p < 0.0001). This association has been widely described in different populations centered in North America and Europe [40,41]. Gynecological and breast cancer were the most frequent extracolonic cancers in females from our LS cohort. Although uterine cancer (endometrial) has been widely described within the LS spectrum, breast cancer is still controversial. This is why some studies have described an increased risk of this cancer in path_MMR carriers [42,43]; in particular, MLH1 carriers have been associated with a cumulative risk of 18.6% [44], MSH6 with 31.1% and PMS2 with 37.7% [42], while other studies found a marginally increased risk (12–15%) compared to the general population [35]. Efforts are ongoing to decipher the underlying tumorigenic processes involved in the development of breast cancer in patients with Lynch syndrome [45,46]. However, sporadic cases of breast cancer cannot be ruled out in our cohort due to the late age at diagnosis and the high frequency in the Chilean general population, where breast cancer was the main cause of mortality by malignant tumors reaching a rate of 15.5:100,000 for women in Chile [2].
In the present study, gastric cancer was the third most frequent extracolonic tumor in our cohort, and the first one in men. Considering that gastric cancer is the most frequent cause of mortality by malignant tumors in both genders in Chile [2] and is related to Helicobacter pylori infection [47], the influence of this environmental factor could modify the risk of gastric cancer in path_MMR carriers. Similar studies also observed a high frequency of gastric cancer in LS patients associated with Helicobacter pylori infection [48], suggesting endoscopic surveillance and bacterial eradication in these patients according to the guidelines [24,25].
Other extracolonic tumors identified in our LS families, such as pancreatic, prostate, skin and urological cancer, have also been described in other LS populations, with frequencies and risks similar to those described here [49,50,51,52,53,54].
The implementation of a hereditary cancer registry allows the identification of individuals at risk, genetic testing, genetic-clinical counseling, early detection of cancer, education of families, and training of professionals, thereby reducing the mortality and morbidity of LS patients [55]. In this sense, the favorable survival observed in our cohort might be explained either by a better prognosis in LS patients [56,57] or by the importance of a Hereditary Registry where a protocolized follow-up was previously defined for our institution and shared with other referral physicians in contact with our registry. Our registry was one of the first to be implemented in South America and constitutes a “reference clinic for genetic counselling” in Chile. As in most of the countries in our region, there is still a lack of awareness about hereditary cancer; we have initiated an e-learning course in cancer genetic counselling with the aim of providing a specialized training course in cancer genetic counselling to Latin American healthcare professionals. Additionally, we are investigating the genetic and clinical differences between populations in Latin America as we are part of a network of Latin American LS family registries (LA-GETH) [33,58]. This study contributes to the clinical and genetic description of Chilean LS families over the last 17 years.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study provides a snapshot view of the current LS-associated diagnostic practice/output in Chile. Categorizing cancer risk according to age, gender, path_MMR and other factors associated with each population (genetic and environmental) is relevant in the genetic counseling of LS patients, facilitating an early diagnosis of associated cancers and improving disease prognosis.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/9/6/1861/s1, Figure S1: Flowchart of Chilean families from Hereditary Colorectal Cancer Registry in Clínica Las Condes; Table S1: Summary of synchronous and metachronous neoplasms in 57 patients from Group 1; Table S2: Summary of mean age at diagnosis and range of major neoplasms observed in LS Chilean families.

Author Contributions

K.Á., P.O. and M.D.l.F.: concept and design, data interpretation, manuscript writing and scientific discussion. T.C. and M.D.l.F.: statistical analysis and data interpretation, manuscript writing. M.D.-V. and P.M.: contributed to manuscript writing and scientific discussion. E.P., B.S. and C.H. (Claudio Heine), C.H. (Claudia Hurtado): data collection and scientific discussion. U.K., A.J.Z. and F.L.-K.: concept and design, manuscript revision and scientific discussion. All authors participated in the study design, interpreted the results and commented on the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by Academic direction, Clínica Las Condes and the Chilean National Science and Technology Research Fund (FONDECYT) grant #11190990, Santiago, Chile.

Acknowledgments

We thank the families for their participation and contribution to this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

AMSAmsterdam
CRCcolorectal cancer
HGMDHuman Gene Mutation Database
HGVSHuman Genome Variation Society
InSIGHTInternational Society of Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumors
LSLynch syndrome
LOVDLeiden Open Variation Database
MLPAMultiplex ligation dependent-probes amplification
MMRmismatch-repair gene
MSImicrosatellite instability
NGSNext generation sequencing
Path_MMRPathogenic (disease-causing) variant of an MMR gene.
path_MLH1Pathogenic (disease-causing) variant of the MLH1 gene
path_MSH2Pathogenic (disease-causing) variant of the MSH2 gene
path_MSH6Pathogenic (disease-causing) variant of the MSH6 gene
path_PMS2Pathogenic (disease-causing) variant of the PMS2 gene
path_EPCAMPathogenic (disease-causing) variant of the EPCAM gene
UMDUniversal Mutation Database

References

  1. Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2020, 70, 7–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Departamento de Estadísticas de Información de Salud. Available online: www.deis.minsal.cl (accessed on 14 May 2020).
  3. Zarate, A.J.; Alonso, F.T.; Garmendia, M.L.; Lopez-Kostner, F. Increasing crude and adjusted mortality rates for colorectal cancer in a developing South American country. Colorectal Dis. 2013, 15, 47–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pinol, V.; Castells, A.; Andreu, M.; Castellvi-Bel, S.; Alenda, C.; Llor, X.; Xicola, R.M.; Rodriguez-Moranta, F.; Paya, A.; Jover, R.; et al. Accuracy of revised Bethesda guidelines, microsatellite instability, and immunohistochemistry for the identification of patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. JAMA 2005, 293, 1986–1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Balmana, J.; Castells, A.; Cervantes, A.; Group, E.G.W. Familial colorectal cancer risk: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann. Oncol. 2010, 21, v78–v81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Thompson, B.A.; Spurdle, A.B.; Plazzer, J.P.; Greenblatt, M.S.; Akagi, K.; Al-Mulla, F.; Bapat, B.; Bernstein, I.; Capella, 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] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Patel, S.G.; Ahnen, D.J. Familial colon cancer syndromes: An update of a rapidly evolving field. Curr. Gastroenterol. Rep. 2012, 14, 428–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Lynch, H.T.; de la Chapelle, A. Hereditary colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 348, 919–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Kuiper, R.P.; Vissers, L.E.; Venkatachalam, R.; Bodmer, D.; Hoenselaar, E.; Goossens, M.; Haufe, A.; Kamping, E.; Niessen, R.C.; Hogervorst, F.B.; et al. Recurrence and variability of germline EPCAM deletions in Lynch syndrome. Hum. Mutat. 2011, 32, 407–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Moller, P.; Seppala, 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 2017, 66, 464–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Moller, P.; Seppala, T.; Bernstein, I.; Holinski-Feder, E.; Sala, P.; Evans, D.G.; Lindblom, A.; Macrae, F.; Blanco, I.; Sijmons, R.; et al. Incidence of and survival after subsequent cancers in carriers of pathogenic MMR variants with previous cancer: A report from the prospective Lynch syndrome database. Gut 2017, 66, 1657–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Gudbjartsson, D.F.; Helgason, H.; Gudjonsson, S.A.; Zink, F.; Oddson, A.; Gylfason, A.; Besenbacher, S.; Magnusson, G.; Halldorsson, B.V.; Hjartarson, E.; et al. Large-scale whole-genome sequencing of the Icelandic population. Nat. Genet. 2015, 47, 435–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Moller, P.; Seppala, T.T.; Bernstein, I.; Holinski-Feder, E.; Sala, P.; Gareth Evans, D.; Lindblom, A.; Macrae, F.; Blanco, I.; Sijmons, R.H.; et al. 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 2018, 67, 1306–1316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Dominguez-Valentin, M.; Joost, P.; Therkildsen, C.; Jonsson, M.; Rambech, E.; Nilbert, M. Frequent mismatch-repair defects link prostate cancer to Lynch syndrome. BMC Urol. 2016, 16, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Joost, P.; Therkildsen, C.; Dominguez-Valentin, M.; Jonsson, M.; Nilbert, M. Urinary Tract Cancer in Lynch Syndrome; Increased Risk in Carriers of MSH2 Mutations. Urology 2015, 86, 1212–1217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Rosty, C.; Walsh, M.D.; Lindor, N.M.; Thibodeau, S.N.; Mundt, E.; Gallinger, S.; Aronson, M.; Pollett, A.; Baron, J.A.; Pearson, S.; et al. High prevalence of mismatch repair deficiency in prostate cancers diagnosed in mismatch repair gene mutation carriers from the colon cancer family registry. Fam. Cancer 2014, 13, 573–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Walsh, M.D.; Buchanan, D.D.; Cummings, M.C.; Pearson, S.A.; Arnold, S.T.; Clendenning, M.; Walters, R.; McKeone, D.M.; Spurdle, A.B.; Hopper, J.L.; et al. Lynch syndrome-associated breast cancers: Clinicopathologic characteristics of a case series from the colon cancer family registry. Clin. Cancer Res. 2010, 16, 2214–2224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Alvarez, K.; Hurtado, C.; Hevia, M.A.; Wielandt, A.M.; de la Fuente, M.; Church, J.; Carvallo, P.; Lopez-Kostner, F. Spectrum of MLH1 and MSH2 mutations in Chilean families with suspected Lynch syndrome. Dis. Colon Rectum 2010, 53, 450–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Vaccaro, C.A.; Bonadeo, F.; Roverano, A.V.; Peltomaki, P.; Bala, S.; Renkonen, E.; Redal, M.A.; Mocetti, E.; Mullen, E.; Ojea-Quintana, G.; et al. Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch Syndrome) in Argentina: Report from a referral hospital register. Dis. Colon Rectum 2007, 50, 1604–1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Dominguez-Valentin, M.; Nilbert, M.; Wernhoff, P.; Lopez-Kostner, F.; Vaccaro, C.; Sarroca, C.; Palmero, E.I.; Giraldo, A.; Ashton-Prolla, P.; Alvarez, K.; et al. Mutation spectrum in South American Lynch syndrome families. Hered. Cancer Clin. Pract. 2013, 11, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Carneiro da Silva, F.; Ferreira, J.R.; Torrezan, G.T.; Figueiredo, M.C.; Santos, E.M.; Nakagawa, W.T.; Brianese, R.C.; Petrolini de Oliveira, L.; Begnani, M.D.; Aguiar-Junior, S.; et al. Clinical and molecular characterization of brazilian patients suspected to have lynch syndrome. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0139753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Da Silva, F.C.; de Oliveira, L.P.; Santos, E.M.; Nakagawa, W.T.; Aguiar Junior, S.; Valentin, M.D.; Rossi, B.M.; de Oliveira Ferreira, F. Frequency of extracolonic tumors in Brazilian families with Lynch syndrome: Analysis of a hereditary colorectal cancer institutional registry. Fam. Cancer 2010, 9, 563–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Oliveira Ferreira, F.; Napoli Ferreira, C.C.; Rossi, B.M.; Toshihiko Nakagawa, W.; Aguilar, S., Jr.; Monteiro Santos, E.M.; Vierira Costa, M.L.; Lopes, A. Frequency of extra-colonic tumors in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) and familial colorectal cancer (FCC) Brazilian families: An analysis by a Brazilian Hereditary Colorectal Cancer Institutional Registry. Fam. Cancer 2004, 3, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Vasen, H.F.; Blanco, I.; Aktan-Collan, K.; Gopie, J.P.; Alonso, A.; Aretz, S.; Bernstein, I.; Bertario, L.; Burn, J.; Capella, G.; et al. Revised guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (HNPCC): Recommendations by a group of European experts. Gut 2013, 62, 812–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Giardiello, F.M.; Allen, J.I.; Axilbund, J.E.; Boland, C.R.; Burke, C.A.; Burt, R.W.; Church, J.M.; Dominitz, J.A.; Johnson, D.A.; Kaltenbach, T.; et al. Guidelines on genetic evaluation and management of Lynch syndrome: A consensus statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2014, 147, 502–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Vasen, H.F.; Mecklin, J.P.; Khan, P.M.; Lynch, H.T. The International Collaborative Group on Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer (ICG-HNPCC). Dis. Colon Rectum 1991, 34, 424–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Vasen, H.F.; Watson, P.; Mecklin, J.P.; Lynch, H.T. New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology 1999, 116, 1453–1456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rodriguez-Bigas, M.A.; Boland, C.R.; Hamilton, S.R.; Henson, D.E.; Jass, J.R.; Khan, P.M.; Lynch, H.; Perucho, M.; Smyrk, T.; Sobin, L.; et al. A National cancer institute workshop on hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: Meeting highlights and Bethesda guidelines. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 1997, 89, 1758–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Umar, A.; Boland, C.R.; Terdiman, J.P.; Syngal, S.; de la Chapelle, A.; Ruschoff, J.; Fishel, R.; Lindor, N.M.; Burgart, L.J.; Hamelin, R.; et al. Revised Bethesda Guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2004, 96, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wielandt, A.M.; Zarate, A.J.; Hurtado, C.; Orellana, P.; Alvarez, K.; Pinto, E.; Contreras, L.; Corvalan, A.; Kronberg, U.; Lopez-Kostner, F. Lynch syndrome: Selection of families by microsatellite instability and immunohistochemistry. Rev. Med. Chil. 2012, 140, 1132–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  31. Rossi, B.M.; Palmero, E.I.; Lopez-Kostner, F.; Sarroca, C.; Vaccaro, C.A.; Spirandelli, F.; Ashton-Prolla, P.; Rodriguez, Y.; de Campos Reis Galvao, H.; Reis, R.M.; et al. A survey of the clinicopathological and molecular characteristics of patients with suspected Lynch syndrome in Latin America. BMC Cancer 2017, 17, 623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Senter, L.; Clendenning, M.; Sotamaa, K.; Hampel, H.; Green, J.; Potter, J.D.; Lindblom, A.; Lagerstedt, K.; Thibodeau, S.N.; Lindor, N.M.; et al. The clinical phenotype of Lynch syndrome due to germ-line PMS2 mutations. Gastroenterology 2008, 135, 419–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Della Valle, A.; Rossi, B.M.; Palmero, E.I.; Antelo, M.; Vaccaro, C.A.; Lopez-Kostner, F.; Alvarez, K.; Cruz-Correa, M.; Bruno, L.I.; Forones, N.M.; et al. A snapshot of current genetic testing practice in Lynch syndrome: The results of a representative survey of 33 Latin American existing centres/registries. Eur. J. Cancer 2019, 119, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Peltomaki, P. Update on Lynch syndrome genomics. Fam. Cancer 2016, 15, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Dominguez-Valentin, M.; Sampson, J.R.; Seppala, T.T.; Ten Broeke, S.W.; Plazzer, J.P.; Nakken, S.; Engel, C.; Aretz, S.; Jenkins, M.A.; Sunde, L.; et al. Cancer risks by gene, age, and gender in 6350 carriers of pathogenic mismatch repair variants: Findings from the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database. Genet. Med. 2020, 22, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Kastrinos, F.; Stoffel, E.M.; Balmana, J.; Steyerberg, E.W.; Mercado, R.; Syngal, S. Phenotype comparison of MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers in a cohort of 1914 individuals undergoing clinical genetic testing in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2008, 17, 2044–2051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Lin-Hurtubise, K.M.; Yheulon, C.G.; Gagliano, R.A., Jr.; Lynch, H.T. Excess of extracolonic non-endometrial multiple primary cancers in MSH2 germline mutation carriers over MLH1. J. Surg. Oncol. 2013, 108, 433–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pande, M.; Wei, C.; Chen, J.; Amos, C.I.; Lynch, P.M.; Lu, K.H.; Lucio, L.A.; Boyd-Rogers, S.G.; Bannon, S.A.; Mork, M.E.; et al. Cancer spectrum in DNA mismatch repair gene mutation carriers: Results from a hospital based Lynch syndrome registry. Fam. Cancer 2012, 11, 441–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vasen, H.F.; Stormorken, A.; Menko, F.H.; Nagengast, F.M.; Kleibeuker, J.H.; Griffioen, G.; Taal, B.G.; Moller, P.; Wijnen, J.T. MSH2 mutation carriers are at higher risk of cancer than MLH1 mutation carriers: A study of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer families. J. Clin. Oncol. 2001, 19, 4074–4080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Barrow, E.; Robinson, L.; Alduaij, W.; Shenton, A.; Clancy, T.; Lalloo, F.; Hill, J.; Evans, D.G. Cumulative lifetime incidence of extracolonic cancers in Lynch syndrome: A report of 121 families with proven mutations. Clin. Genet. 2009, 75, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Win, A.K.; Lindor, N.M.; Young, J.P.; Macrae, F.A.; Young, G.P.; Williamson, E.; Parry, S.; Goldblatt, J.; Lipton, L.; Winship, I.; et al. Risks of primary extracolonic cancers following colorectal cancer in lynch syndrome. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2012, 104, 1363–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Roberts, M.E.; Jackson, S.A.; Susswein, L.R.; Zeinomar, N.; Ma, X.; Marshall, M.L.; Stettner, A.R.; Milewski, B.; Xu, Z.; Solomon, B.D.; et al. MSH6 and PMS2 germ-line pathogenic variants implicated in Lynch syndrome are associated with breast cancer. Genet. Med. 2018, 20, 1167–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Win, A.K.; Lindor, N.M.; Winship, I.; Tucker, K.M.; Buchanan, D.D.; Young, J.P.; Rosty, C.; Leggett, B.; Giles, G.G.; Goldblatt, J.; et al. Risks of colorectal and other cancers after endometrial cancer for women with Lynch syndrome. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2013, 105, 274–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Harkness, E.F.; Barrow, E.; Newton, K.; Green, K.; Clancy, T.; Lalloo, F.; Hill, J.; Evans, D.G. Lynch syndrome caused by MLH1 mutations is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer: A cohort study. J. Med. Genet. 2015, 52, 553–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Lotsari, J.E.; Gylling, A.; Abdel-Rahman, W.M.; Nieminen, T.T.; Aittomaki, K.; Friman, M.; Pitkanen, R.; Aarnio, M.; Jarvinen, H.J.; Mecklin, J.P.; et al. Breast carcinoma and Lynch syndrome: Molecular analysis of tumors arising in mutation carriers, non-carriers, and sporadic cases. Breast Cancer Res. 2012, 14, R90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Porkka, N.K.; Olkinuora, A.; Kuopio, T.; Ahtiainen, M.; Eldfors, S.; Almusa, H.; Mecklin, J.P.; Peltomaki, P. Does breast carcinoma belong to the Lynch syndrome tumor spectrum?—Somatic mutational profiles vs. ovarian and colorectal carcinomas. Oncotarget 2020, 11, 1244–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Ferreccio, C.; Rollan, A.; Harris, P.R.; Serrano, C.; Gederlini, A.; Margozzini, P.; Gonzalez, C.; Aguilera, X.; Venegas, A.; Jara, A. Gastric cancer is related to early Helicobacter pylori infection in a high-prevalence country. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2007, 16, 662–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Saita, C.; Yamaguchi, T.; Horiguchi, S.I.; Yamada, R.; Takao, M.; Iijima, T.; Wakaume, R.; Aruga, T.; Tabata, T.; Koizumi, K. Tumor development in Japanese patients with Lynch syndrome. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0195572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kastrinos, F.; Mukherjee, B.; Tayob, N.; Wang, F.; Sparr, J.; Raymond, V.M.; Bandipalliam, P.; Stoffel, E.M.; Gruber, S.B.; Syngal, S. Risk of pancreatic cancer in families with Lynch syndrome. JAMA 2009, 302, 1790–1795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Bujanda, L.; Herreros-Villanueva, M. Pancreatic Cancer in Lynch Syndrome Patients. J. Cancer 2017, 8, 3667–3674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Watson, P.; Vasen, H.F.A.; Mecklin, J.P.; Bernstein, I.; Aarnio, M.; Jarvinen, H.J.; Myrhoj, T.; Sunde, L.; Wijnen, J.T.; Lynch, H.T. The risk of extra-colonic, extra-endometrial cancer in the Lynch syndrome. Int. J. Cancer 2008, 123, 444–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Grindedal, E.M.; Moller, P.; Eeles, R.; Stormorken, A.T.; Bowitz-Lothe, I.M.; Landro, S.M.; Clark, N.; Kvale, R.; Shanley, S.; Maehle, L. Germ-line mutations in mismatch repair genes associated with prostate cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2009, 18, 2460–2467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Van der Post, R.S.; Kiemeney, L.A.; Ligtenberg, M.J.; Witjes, J.A.; Hulsbergen-van de Kaa, C.A.; Bodmer, D.; Schaap, L.; Kets, C.M.; van Krieken, J.H.; Hoogerbrugge, N. Risk of urothelial bladder cancer in Lynch syndrome is increased, in particular among MSH2 mutation carriers. J. Med. Genet. 2010, 47, 464–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Engel, C.; Loeffler, M.; Steinke, V.; Rahner, N.; Holinski-Feder, E.; Dietmaier, W.; Schackert, H.K.; Goergens, H.; von Knebel Doeberitz, M.; Goecke, T.O.; et al. Risks of less common cancers in proven mutation carriers with lynch syndrome. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 4409–4415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. De Jong, A.E.; Hendriks, Y.M.; Kleibeuker, J.H.; de Boer, S.Y.; Cats, A.; Griffioen, G.; Nagengast, F.M.; Nelis, F.G.; Rookus, M.A.; Vasen, H.F. Decrease in mortality in Lynch syndrome families because of surveillance. Gastroenterology 2006, 130, 665–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Watson, P.; Lin, K.M.; Rodriguez-Bigas, M.A.; Smyrk, T.; Lemon, S.; Shashidharan, M.; Franklin, B.; Karr, B.; Thorson, A.; Lynch, H.T. Colorectal carcinoma survival among hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma family members. Cancer 1998, 83, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Maxwell, G.L.; Risinger, J.I.; Alvarez, A.A.; Barrett, J.C.; Berchuck, A. Favorable survival associated with microsatellite instability in endometrioid endometrial cancers. Obstet. Gynecol. 2001, 97, 417–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Pinero, T.A.; Soukarieh, O.; Rolain, M.; Alvarez, K.; Lopez-Kostner, F.; Torrezan, G.T.; Carraro, D.M.; De Oliveira Nascimento, I.L.; Bomfim, T.F.; Machado-Lopes, T.M.B.; et al. MLH1 intronic variants mapping to + 5 position of splice donor sites lead to deleterious effects on RNA splicing. Fam. Cancer 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the 27 different path_MMR variants identified in each gene.
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the 27 different path_MMR variants identified in each gene.
Jcm 09 01861 g001
Figure 2. Flowchart of analysis.
Figure 2. Flowchart of analysis.
Jcm 09 01861 g002
Figure 3. Spectrum and frequency of tumors by gender in Group 1.
Figure 3. Spectrum and frequency of tumors by gender in Group 1.
Jcm 09 01861 g003
Figure 4. Cumulative incidence for first cancer diagnosed before 75 years in path_MMR carriers (Group 2) according to (A) gender, (B) gene and (C) females with path_MLH1 and path_MSH2.
Figure 4. Cumulative incidence for first cancer diagnosed before 75 years in path_MMR carriers (Group 2) according to (A) gender, (B) gene and (C) females with path_MLH1 and path_MSH2.
Jcm 09 01861 g004
Table 1. Summary of class 4 and 5 path_MMR variants identified in 34 Chilean LS families.
Table 1. Summary of class 4 and 5 path_MMR variants identified in 34 Chilean LS families.
FamilyCriteria #GeneNucleotide Change ##Protein Change
HNPCC056AmsMLH1Deletion exon 1 bp.0?
HNPCC008AmsMLH1Deletion exon 1 bp.0?
HNPCC006AmsMLH1c.503dupA ap.N168Kfs*4
HNPCC002AmsMLH1c.677 + 5G > A bp.Q197Rfs*8/p.E53Ffs*8
HNPCC029AmsMLH1c.790 + 1G > A ap.E227_S295del
HNPCC043AmsMLH1c.794G > C cp.R265P
HNPCC009AmsMLH1c.901C > T ap.Q301*
HNPCC080AmsMLH1c.997_1000delAAGC cp.K333Sfs*33
HNPCC037AmsMLH1c.1038 + 1G > T bp.T347Ffs*14
HNPCC062AmsMLH1c.1559 − 2A > C cp.L521Kfs*34
HNPCC018AmsMLH1Deletion exons 14 and 15 bp.V520Gfs*7
HNPCC001AmsMLH1c.1731 + 3A > T ap.S556Rfs*14
HNPCC073AmsMLH1c.2041G > A ap.A681T
HNPCC082AmsMLH1c.2041G > A ap.A681T
HNPCC086BethMLH1c.2041G > A ap.A681T
HNPCC011BethMLH1c.2041G > A ap.A681T
HNPCC057AmsMLH1c.2041G > A ap.A681T
HNPCC019BethMLH1c.2092_2093delTC ap.S698Rfs*5
HNPCC004AmsMLH1Deletion exon 19 bp.S702_X757del
HNPCC010AmsMLH1Deletion exon 19 bp.S702_X757del
HNPCC047AmsMSH2Deletion exon 2 bp.A72Ffs*9
HNPCC100AmsMSH2c.388_389delCA cp.Q130Vfs*2
HNPCC118AmsMSH2c.942 + 3A > T cp.V265_Q314del
HNPCC027AmsMSH2c.1215C > A ap.Y405*
HNPCC111BethMSH2c.1861C > T cp.R621*
HNPCC031AmsMSH2c.2038C > T ap.R680*
HNPCC075AmsMSH2c.2131C > T cp.R711*
HNPCC012AmsMSH2c.2185_2192del7insCCCT ap.M729_E731delinsP729_*730
HNPCC088AmsEPCAM-MSH2Deletion EPCAM and exons 1–6 MSH2 cp.?
HNPCC094AmsEPCAMDeletion exons 6–9 cp.?
HNPCC106USPMS2c.903G > T dp.K301N (Skips exon 8)
HNPCC084BethPMS2c.2016delG cp.M672Ifs*15
HNPCC093AmsPMS2Deletion exon 14 cp.A759Gfs*8
HNPCC116USPMS2Deletion exon 14 cp.A759Gfs*8
# Ams: Amsterdam; Beth: Bethesda; US: Universal Screening; ## path_MMR variants have been described in a Alvarez et al. 2010 [18]; b Wielandt et al. 2012 [30]; c Rossi et al. 2017 [31], d Senter et al. 2008 [32].
Table 2. Clinical description of individuals with cancer in Group 1 and Group 2.
Table 2. Clinical description of individuals with cancer in Group 1 and Group 2.
Clinical InformationGroup 1Group 2
Gender: n (%)
Female109 (51)37 (59)
Male104 (49)27 (42)
Total21364
Neoplasms: n (%)
CRC170/140 subjects88/61 subjects
Extracolonic cancer138/109 subjects35/23 subjects
Total308123
Neoplasm by gender **: n (%)
Female17373
CRC72 (41.6)43 (58.9)
Extracolonic cancer101 (58.4)30 (41.1)
Male13550
CRC98 (72.6)45 (90)
Extracolonic cancer37 (27.4)5 (10)
Age (years) at diagnosis: mean and range
Any first cancer45.1 (1–89)40.8 (18–84)
Female45.9 (1–89)39.5 (18–84)
Male44.2 (10–84)42.5 (27–65)
First CRC 43.4 (18–89)41.2 (18–65)
Female 43.1 (18–89)39.6 (18–63)
Male42.5 (21–73)43.2 (27–65)
First extracolonic cancer51.0 (1–88)43.3 (26–84)
Female 50.8 (1–88)48.1 (26–84)
Male51.5 (10–84)55.0 (40–66)
CRC: colorectal cancer; ** Chi-square test between gender and type of cancer (CRC and extracolonic) showed p < 0.0001 (Group 1) and p = 0.00017 (Group 2).
Table 3. Spectrum and frequency of neoplasms in Group 1 and Group 2 for each path_MMR gene.
Table 3. Spectrum and frequency of neoplasms in Group 1 and Group 2 for each path_MMR gene.
Group 1Group 2
Neoplasmpath_MLH1
n = 195
path_MSH2
n = 99
path_PMS2
n = 14
Total
n = 308
path_MLH1
n = 77
path_MSH2
n = 41
path_PMS2
n = 5
Total
n = 123
Colorectal: n (%)116 (59.5)47 (47.5)7 (50)17057 (74)27 (66)4 (80)88
Extracolonic: n (%)79 (40.5)52 (52.5) 7 (50)13820 (26)14 (34)1 (20)35
Gynecological cancer
Uterus21 (10.8)11 (11.1)1 (7.1)334 (5.2)2 (4.9)06
Ovary2 (1.0)5 (5.1)1 (7.1)81 (1.3)4 (9.8)05
Upper gastrointestinal cancer
Stomach10 (5.1)7 (7.1)0171 (1.3)001
Pancreas6 (3.0)1 (1.0)1 (7.1)82 (2.6)002
Liver3 (1.5)0030000
Gallbladder1 (0.5)0010000
Small Intestine01 (1.0)0101 (2.4)01
Genitourinary tract cancer
Kidney2 (1.0)6 (6.1)1 (7.1)91 (1.3)1 (2.4))02
Bladder01(1.0)0101(2.4)01
Ureter3(1.5)0030000
Other cancers
Breast12 (6.2)7 (7.1)1 (7.1)204 (5.2)2 (4.9)06
Skin7 (3.6)6 (6.1)0135 (6.5)3 (7.3)08
Brain2 (1.0)3 (3.0)050 000
Lung2 (1.0)2 (2.0)041 (1.3)001
Prostate5 (2.6)0050000
Soft tissue1 (0.5)0011(1.3)001
Bone1 (0.5)0010000
Leukemia1 (0.5)01 (7.1)20000
Head and Neck01 (1.0)010000
Thyroid01 (1.0)010000
Cervix001 (7.1)1001 (20)1
A chi-square test between path_MLH1/MSH2 and type of cancer (CRC and extracolonic) showed p = 0.05018 (Group 1) and p = 0.3506 (Group 2).
Table 4. Cumulative incidence (%) of colorectal and extracolonic cancers diagnosed before 75 years by age, gender and gene in path_MMR carriers (Group 2).
Table 4. Cumulative incidence (%) of colorectal and extracolonic cancers diagnosed before 75 years by age, gender and gene in path_MMR carriers (Group 2).
Cancer TypeAge, YearAll %CI95Genderpath_MLH1path_MSH2path_PMS2 **
FemaleCI95MaleCI95FemaleCI95MaleCI95FemaleCI95MaleCI95BothCI95
Colorectal (n = 61)5059.546.4–69.459.549.1–72.260.138.9–74.063.539.1–78.267.939.7–83.053.59.8–76.068.09.2–88.720.50–42.3
6075.762.3–84.476.556.2–87.474.652.9–86.380.552.1–92.078.650.1–90.882.610.4–96.684.09.3–97.236.40–63.1
7088.273.7–94.789.566.6–96.786.559.3–95.587.056.7–96.189.345.7–97.9100.0-100.0-68.20–92.8
Extracolonic (n = 22)5018.58.6–27.331.314.4–44.92.70–7.823.24.6–38.10-64.112.8–85.210.00–26.80.0-
6028.014.8–39.239.619.7–54.513.50–27.236.610.2–55.215.40–32.964.112.8–85.210.00–26.80.0-
7050.027.9–65.471.735.0–87.724.30–44.760.415.7–81.415.40–32.9100-55.00–88.933.30–70.0
Gynecological (n = 10)5022.17.1–34.722.17.1–34.7--12.10–24.2--60.05.7–83.0--0.0-
6030.011.8–44.430.011.8–44.4--24.22.1–41.2--60.05.7–83.0--0.0-
7030.011.8–44.430.011.8–44.4--24.22.1–41.2--60.05.7–83.0--0.0-
Skin (n = 5)502.40–5.62.10–6.02.70–7.80.0-0.0-7.70–21.110.00–26.80.0-
605.00–10.72.10–6.08.10–18.80.0-7.70–21.17.70–21.110.00–26.80.0-
7014.50–27.011.00–26.518.30–37.212.50–32.77.70–21.17.70–21.155.00–88.90.0-
Upper gastrointestinal tract (n = 3)501.70–5.0--------------
604.30–10.1--------------
704.30–10.1--------------
Breast (n = 3)505.20–12.15.20–12.1--3.40–9.9--12.50–32.7--0.0-
609.00–18.59.00–18.5--9.50–21.6--12.50–32.7--0.0-
709.00–18.59.00–18.5--9.50–21.6- 12.50–32.7--0.0-
** For PMS2 both genders were evaluated.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Álvarez, K.; Orellana, P.; De la Fuente, M.; Canales, T.; Pinto, E.; Heine, C.; Solar, B.; Hurtado, C.; Møller, P.; Kronberg, U.; et al. Spectrum and Frequency of Tumors, Cancer Risk and Survival in Chilean Families with Lynch Syndrome: Experience of the Implementation of a Registry. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 1861. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061861

AMA Style

Álvarez K, Orellana P, De la Fuente M, Canales T, Pinto E, Heine C, Solar B, Hurtado C, Møller P, Kronberg U, et al. Spectrum and Frequency of Tumors, Cancer Risk and Survival in Chilean Families with Lynch Syndrome: Experience of the Implementation of a Registry. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2020; 9(6):1861. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061861

Chicago/Turabian Style

Álvarez, Karin, Paulina Orellana, Marjorie De la Fuente, Tamara Canales, Eliana Pinto, Claudio Heine, Benjamín Solar, Claudia Hurtado, Pål Møller, Udo Kronberg, and et al. 2020. "Spectrum and Frequency of Tumors, Cancer Risk and Survival in Chilean Families with Lynch Syndrome: Experience of the Implementation of a Registry" Journal of Clinical Medicine 9, no. 6: 1861. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9061861

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