Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2021 Jun;25(42):1–216. doi: 10.3310/hta25420

Testing strategies for Lynch syndrome in people with endometrial cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.

Chris Stinton, Mary Jordan, Hannah Fraser, Peter Auguste, Rachel Court, Lena Al-Khudairy, Jason Madan, Dimitris Grammatopoulos, Sian Taylor-Phillips
PMCID: PMC8273681  PMID: 34169821

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Lynch syndrome is an inherited genetic condition that is associated with an increased risk of certain cancers. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended that people with colorectal cancer are tested for Lynch syndrome. Routine testing for Lynch syndrome among people with endometrial cancer is not currently conducted.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence on the test accuracy of immunohistochemistry- and microsatellite instability-based strategies to detect Lynch syndrome among people who have endometrial cancer, and the clinical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of testing for Lynch syndrome among people who have been diagnosed with endometrial cancer.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were conducted in the following databases, from inception to August 2019 - MEDLINE ALL, EMBASE (both via Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (both via Wiley Online Library), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Health Technology Assessment Database (both via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (both via Web of Science), PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination), NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, EconPapers (Research Papers in Economics) and School of Health and Related Research Health Utilities Database. The references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews were also checked and experts on the team were consulted.

REVIEW METHODS

Eligible studies included people with endometrial cancer who were tested for Lynch syndrome using immunohistochemistry- and/or microsatellite instability-based testing [with or without mutL homologue 1 (MLH1) promoter hypermethylation testing], with Lynch syndrome diagnosis being established though germline testing of normal (non-tumour) tissue for constitutional mutations in mismatch repair. The risk of bias in studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool, the Consolidated Health Economic Reporting Standards and the Philips' checklist. Two reviewers independently conducted each stage of the review. A meta-analysis of test accuracy was not possible because of the number and heterogeneity of studies. A narrative summary of test accuracy results was provided, reporting test accuracy estimates and presenting forest plots. The economic model constituted a decision tree followed by Markov models for the impact of colorectal and endometrial surveillance, and aspirin prophylaxis with a lifetime time horizon.

RESULTS

The clinical effectiveness search identified 3308 studies; 38 studies of test accuracy were included. (No studies of clinical effectiveness of endometrial cancer surveillance met the inclusion criteria.) Four test accuracy studies compared microsatellite instability with immunohistochemistry. No clear difference in accuracy between immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability was observed. There was some evidence that specificity of immunohistochemistry could be improved with the addition of methylation testing. There was high concordance between immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability. The economic model indicated that all testing strategies, compared with no testing, were cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Immunohistochemistry with MLH1 promoter hypermethylation testing was the most cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £9420 per quality-adjusted life-year. The second most cost-effective strategy was immunohistochemistry testing alone, but incremental analysis produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio exceeding £130,000. Results were robust across all scenario analyses. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from £5690 to £20,740; only removing the benefits of colorectal cancer surveillance produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in excess of the £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. A sensitivity analysis identified the main cost drivers of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as percentage of relatives accepting counselling and prevalence of Lynch syndrome in the population. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, a 0.93 probability that immunohistochemistry with MLH1 promoter hypermethylation testing is cost-effective, compared with no testing.

LIMITATIONS

The systematic review excluded grey literature, studies written in non-English languages and studies for which the reference standard could not be established. Studies were included when Lynch syndrome was diagnosed by genetic confirmation of constitutional variants in the four mismatch repair genes (i.e. MLH1, mutS homologue 2, mutS homologue 6 and postmeiotic segregation increased 2). Variants of uncertain significance were reported as per the studies. There were limitations in the economic model around uncertainty in the model parameters and a lack of modelling of the potential harms of gynaecological surveillance and specific pathway modelling of genetic testing for somatic mismatch repair mutations.

CONCLUSION

The economic model suggests that testing women with endometrial cancer for Lynch syndrome is cost-effective, but that results should be treated with caution because of uncertain model inputs.

FUTURE WORK

Randomised controlled trials could provide evidence on the effect of earlier intervention on outcomes and the balance of benefits and harms of gynaecological cancer surveillance. Follow-up of negative cases through disease registers could be used to determine false negative cases.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019147185.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition that is caused by a problem in the genes. People who have Lynch syndrome have a higher risk of some types of cancer (such as bowel and womb cancers) than people who do not have it. Identifying Lynch syndrome could stop cancers developing, lead to earlier treatment for cancers and help to find other family members who might have it. Currently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance recommends testing for Lynch syndrome in people who have bowel cancer. Our aim was to investigate whether or not we should test for Lynch syndrome in women with womb cancer, and their relatives. We investigated two main tests: immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability. There was no clear evidence that one of these tests is better than the other. There is some evidence that both tests are reasonably accurate. There was no good-quality evidence about whether or not treating women with Lynch syndrome with extra cancer screening and aspirin improves their outcomes. We used the best evidence available in our economic model, but it was at high risk of bias. The economic model suggested that testing women with endometrial cancer for Lynch syndrome is cost-effective. The best test in the model was immunohistochemistry followed by methylation testing. We are unsure of these results because of the low quality of evidence available.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Molecular Testing Strategies for Lynch Syndrome in People with Colorectal Cancer. Diagnostics guidance [DG27]. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/dg27 (accessed 2 August 2019).
  2. Møller P, Seppälä T, Bernstein I, Holinski-Feder E, Sala P, Evans DG, 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;66:464–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309675 doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309675. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  3. Lu KH, Loose DS, Yates MS, Nogueras-Gonzalez GM, Munsell MF, Chen LM, et al. Prospective multicenter randomized intermediate biomarker study of oral contraceptive versus depo-provera for prevention of endometrial cancer in women with Lynch syndrome. Cancer Prev Res 2013;6:774–81. https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0020 doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  4. Stinton C, Fraser H, Al-Khudairy L, Court R, Jordan M, Grammatopoulos D, Taylor-Phillips S. Testing for Lynch syndrome in people with endometrial cancer using immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability-based testing strategies – a systematic review of test accuracy. Gynecol Oncol 2021;160:148–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.10.003 doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.10.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Roett MA. Genital cancers in women: uterine cancer. FP Essent 2015;438:11–17. [PubMed]
  6. Cancer Research UK. Uterine Cancer Incidence Statistics. 2016. URL: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/uterine-cancer/incidence#heading-One (accessed 2 August 2019).
  7. Cancer Research UK. Uterine Cancer Mortality Statistics. 2016. URL: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/uterine-cancer/mortality (accessed 2 August 2019).
  8. Office for National Statistics. Cancer Survival in England: National Estimates for Patients Followed Up to 2017. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/cancersurvivalinengland/nationalestimatesforpatientsfollowedupto2017 (accessed 2 August 2019).
  9. Ali AT. Reproductive factors and the risk of endometrial cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2014;24:384–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000075 doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000075. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Trabert B, Wentzensen N, Yang HP, Sherman ME, Hollenbeck AR, Park Y, et al. Is estrogen plus progestin menopausal hormone therapy safe with respect to endometrial cancer risk? Int J Cancer 2013;132:417–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.27623 doi: 10.1002/ijc.27623. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  11. Raglan O, Kalliala I, Markozannes G, Cividini S, Gunter MJ, Nautiyal J, et al. Risk factors for endometrial cancer: an umbrella review of the literature. Int J Cancer 2019;145:1719–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.31961 doi: 10.1002/ijc.31961. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Snowsill T, Coelho H, Huxley N, Jones-Hughes T, Briscoe S, Frayling IM, Hyde C. Molecular testing for Lynch syndrome in people with colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2017;21(51). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta21510 doi: 10.3310/hta21510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  13. Kuiper RP, Vissers LE, Venkatachalam R, Bodmer D, Hoenselaar E, Goossens M, et al. Recurrence and variability of germline EPCAM deletions in Lynch syndrome. Hum Mutat 2011;32:407–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.21446 doi: 10.1002/humu.21446. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Møller P, Seppälä TT, Bernstein I, Holinski-Feder E, Sala P, Gareth Evans D, 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;67:1306–16. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314057 doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314057. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  15. Hampel H, Frankel W, Panescu J, Lockman J, Sotamaa K, Fix D, et al. Screening for Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) among endometrial cancer patients. Cancer Res 2006;66:7810–17. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-1114 doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-1114. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Lu KH, Schorge JO, Rodabaugh KJ, Daniels MS, Sun CC, Soliman PT, et al. Prospective determination of prevalence of Lynch syndrome in young women with endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5158–64. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.10.8597 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.10.8597. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Shia J. Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing for screening colorectal cancer patients at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Part I. The utility of immunohistochemistry. J Mol Diagn 2008;10:293–300. https://doi.org/10.2353/jmoldx.2008.080031 doi: 10.2353/jmoldx.2008.080031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  18. Hegde M, Ferber M, Mao R, Samowitz W, Ganguly A, Working Group of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee. ACMG technical standards and guidelines for genetic testing for inherited colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis, and MYH-associated polyposis). Genet Med 2014;16:101–16. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.166 doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.166. [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP, Syngal S, de la Chapelle A, Rüschoff J, et al. Revised Bethesda Guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:261–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh034 doi: 10.1093/jnci/djh034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  20. Castillejo A, Hernández-Illán E, Rodriguez-Soler M, Pérez-Carbonell L, Egoavil C, Barberá VM, et al. Prevalence of MLH1 constitutional epimutations as a cause of Lynch syndrome in unselected versus selected consecutive series of patients with colorectal cancer. J Med Genet 2015;52:498–502. https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103076 doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103076. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Cho KR, Cooper K, Croce S, Djordevic B, Herrington S, Howitt B, et al. International Society of Gynecological Pathologists (ISGyP) Endometrial Cancer Project: guidelines from the Special Techniques and Ancillary Studies Group. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2019;38(Suppl. 1):114–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000496 doi: 10.1097/PGP.0000000000000496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. Crosbie EJ, Ryan NAJ, Arends MJ, Bosse T, Burn J, Cornes JM, et al. The Manchester International Consensus Group recommendations for the management of gynecological cancers in Lynch syndrome. Genet Med 2019;21:2390–400. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0489-y doi: 10.1038/s41436-019-0489-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  23. NHS England. National Genomic Test Directory: Testing Criteria for Rare and Inherited Disease. 2019. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/rare-and-inherited-disease-eligibility-criteria-march-19.pdf (accessed 2 August 2019).
  24. Sundar S, Balega J, Crosbie E, Drake A, Edmondson R, Fotopoulou C, et al. BGCS uterine cancer guidelines: recommendations for practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017;213:71–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.04.015 doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.04.015. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Vasen HF, Blanco I, Aktan-Collan K, Gopie JP, Alonso A, Aretz S, et al. Revised guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (HNPCC): recommendations by a group of European experts. Gut 2013;62:812–23. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304356 doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. Kulkarni A, Brady AF. Management of Women with a Genetic Predisposition to Gynaecological Cancers: Scientific Impact Paper No. 48. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2015. URL: www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/scientific-impact-papers/sip48.pdf (accessed 10 August 2019).
  27. Monahan KJ, Bradshaw N, Dolwani S, Desouza B, Dunlop MG, East JE, et al. Guidelines for the management of hereditary colorectal cancer from the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI)/United Kingdom Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG) [published online ahead of print November 28 2019]. Gut 2019. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319915 doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319915. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  28. National Guideline Alliance hosted by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist. [A1] Effectiveness of Aspirin in the Prevention of Colorectal Cancer in People with Lynch Syndrome: Evidence Review for Colorectal Cancer (Update). URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/GID-NG10060/documents/evidence-review (accessed 10 January 2020).
  29. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Lynch Syndrome. Practice Bulletin No. 147. Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:1042–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.Aog.0000456325.50739.72 doi: 10.1097/01.Aog.0000456325.50739.72. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Paluch-Shimon S, Cardoso F, Sessa C, Balmana J, Cardoso MJ, Gilbert F, et al. Prevention and screening in BRCA mutation carriers and other breast/ovarian hereditary cancer syndromes: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for cancer prevention and screening. Ann Oncol 2016;27(Suppl. 5):v103–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw327 doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdw327. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Cochrane Screening and Diagnostic Tests Methods Group. Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews. URL: https://methods.cochrane.org/sdt/handbook-dta-reviews (accessed 2 August 2019).
  32. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Diagnostics Assessment Programme Manual. 2011. URL: www.nice.org.uk/Media/Default/About/what-we-do/NICE-guidance/NICE-diagnostics-guidance/Diagnostics-assessment-programme-manual.pdf (accessed 2 August 2019). [PubMed]
  33. Frayling I, Berry I, Wallace A, Payne S, Norbury G. ACGS Best Practice Guidelines for Genetic Testing and Diagnosis of Lynch Syndrome. URL: www.acgs.uk.com/media/10774/ls_bpg_approved.pdf (accessed 6 August 2019).
  34. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529–36. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009. [DOI] [PubMed]
  35. University of Bristol. QUADAS-2. 2021. URL: www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/quadas/migrated/documents/quadas2.pdf (accessed 4 May 2021).
  36. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, QUADAS-2 Steering Group. A systematic review classifies sources of bias and variation in diagnostic test accuracy studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:1093–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.014 doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.05.014. [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. Wilson EB. Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc 1927;22:209–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1927.10502953 doi: 10.1080/01621459.1927.10502953. [DOI]
  38. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. URL: www.york.ac.uk/crd/guidance/ (accessed 19 October 2019).
  39. Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Hróbjartsson A, Boutron I, et al. A Revised Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomized Trials. In Chandler J, McKenzie J, Boutron I, Welch V, editors. Cochrane Methods 2016. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; Issue 10 (Suppl. 1). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD201601 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD201601. [DOI]
  40. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919 doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  41. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Eur J Health Econ 2013;14:367–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-013-0471-6 doi: 10.1007/s10198-013-0471-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  42. Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2004;8(36). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta8360 doi: 10.3310/hta8360. [DOI] [PubMed]
  43. Snowsill TM, Ryan NAJ, Crosbie EJ, Frayling IM, Evans DG, Hyde CJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis of reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer in the UK setting. PLOS ONE 2019;14:e0221419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221419 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  44. Järvinen HJ, Aarnio M, Mustonen H, Aktan-Collan K, Aaltonen LA, Peltomäki P, et al. Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2000;118:829–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5085(00)70168-5 doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(00)70168-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  45. Dominguez-Valentin M, Sampson JR, Seppälä TT, Ten Broeke SW, Plazzer JP, Nakken S, 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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0596-9 doi: 10.1038/s41436-019-0596-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  46. Cancer Research UK. Uterine Cancer Survival Statistics. URL: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/uterine-cancer/survival (accessed 2 January 2020).
  47. Ara R, Brazier JE. Populating an economic model with health state utility values: moving toward better practice. Value Health 2010;13:509–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00700.x doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2010.00700.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  48. Burn J, Gerdes AM, Macrae F, Mecklin JP, Moeslein G, Olschwang S, 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;378:2081–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61049-0 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61049-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  49. NHS Improvement. National Schedule of Reference Costs 2017/18. URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/reference-costs/#rc1718 (accessed 2 January 2020).
  50. Ryan NAJ, Davison NJ, Payne K, Cole A, Evans DG, Crosbie EJ. A micro-costing study of screening for Lynch syndrome-associated pathogenic variants in an unselected endometrial cancer population: cheap as NGS chips? Front Oncol 2019;9:61. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00061 doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  51. Anagnostopoulos A, McKay VH, Cooper I, Campbell F, Greenhalgh L, Kirwan J. Identifying Lynch syndrome in women presenting with endometrial carcinoma under the age of 50 years. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017;27:931–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000962 doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000962. [DOI] [PubMed]
  52. Backes FJ, Leon ME, Ivanov I, Suarez A, Frankel WL, Hampel H, et al. Prospective evaluation of DNA mismatch repair protein expression in primary endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2009;114:486–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.05.026 doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.05.026. [DOI] [PubMed]
  53. Baldinu P, Cossu A, Manca A, Satta MP, Pisano M, Casula M, et al. Microsatellite instability and mutation analysis of candidate genes in unselected sardinian patients with endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 2002;94:3157–68. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.10606 doi: 10.1002/cncr.10606. [DOI] [PubMed]
  54. Berends MJ, Wu Y, Sijmons RH, van der Sluis T, Ek WB, Ligtenberg MJ, et al. Toward new strategies to select young endometrial cancer patients for mismatch repair gene mutation analysis. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4364–70. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.04.094 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.094. [DOI] [PubMed]
  55. Bruegl AS, Ring KL, Daniels M, Fellman BM, Urbauer DL, Broaddus RR. Clinical challenges associated with universal screening for Lynch syndrome-associated endometrial cancer. Cancer Prev Res 2017;10:108–15. https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-16-0219 doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-16-0219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  56. Buchanan DD, Tan YY, Walsh MD, Clendenning M, Metcalf AM, Ferguson K, et al. Tumor mismatch repair immunohistochemistry and DNA MLH1 methylation testing of patients with endometrial cancer diagnosed at age younger than 60 years optimizes triage for population-level germline mismatch repair gene mutation testing. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:90–100. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.51.2129 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.51.2129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  57. Carnevali I, Libera L, Chiaravalli A, Sahnane N, Furlan D, Viel A, et al. Somatic testing on gynecological cancers improve the identification of Lynch syndrome. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2017;27:1543–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000001010 doi: 10.1097/IGC.0000000000001010. [DOI] [PubMed]
  58. Chao X, Li L, Wu M, Ma S, Tan X, Zhong S, et al. Comparison of screening strategies for Lynch syndrome in patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer: a prospective cohort study in China. Cancer Commun 2019;39:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40880-019-0388-2 doi: 10.1186/s40880-019-0388-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  59. Dillon JL, Gonzalez JL, DeMars L, Bloch KJ, Tafe LJ. Universal screening for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancers: frequency of germline mutations and identification of patients with Lynch-like syndrome. Hum Pathol 2017;70:121–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2017.10.022 doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2017.10.022. [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Dudley B, Brand RE, Thull D, Bahary N, Nikiforova MN, Pai RK. Germline MLH1 mutations are frequently identified in Lynch syndrome patients with colorectal and endometrial carcinoma demonstrating isolated loss of PMS2 immunohistochemical expression. Am J Surg Pathol 2015;39:1114–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000425 doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000425. [DOI] [PubMed]
  61. Egoavil C, Alenda C, Castillejo A, Paya A, Peiro G, Sánchez-Heras AB, et al. Prevalence of Lynch syndrome among patients with newly diagnosed endometrial cancers. PLOS ONE 2013;8:e79737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0079737 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079737. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  62. Ferguson SE, Aronson M, Pollett A, Eiriksson LR, Oza AM, Gallinger S, et al. Performance characteristics of screening strategies for Lynch syndrome in unselected women with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer who have undergone universal germline mutation testing. Cancer 2014;120:3932–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28933 doi: 10.1002/cncr.28933. [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. Goodfellow PJ, Billingsley CC, Lankes HA, Ali S, Cohn DE, Broaddus RJ, et al. Combined microsatellite instability, MLH1 methylation analysis, and immunohistochemistry for Lynch syndrome screening in endometrial cancers from GOG210: an NRG Oncology and Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:4301–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.9518 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.9518. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  64. Goodfellow PJ, Buttin BM, Herzog TJ, Rader JS, Gibb RK, Swisher E, et al. Prevalence of defective DNA mismatch repair and MSH6 mutation in an unselected series of endometrial cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:5908–13. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1030231100 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1030231100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  65. Kato A, Sato N, Sugawara T, Takahashi K, Kito M, Makino K, et al. Isolated loss of PMS2 immunohistochemical expression is frequently caused by heterogenous MLH1 promoter hypermethylation in Lynch syndrome screening for endometrial cancer patients. Am J Surg Pathol 2016;40:770–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000606 doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  66. Latham A, Srinivasan P, Kemel Y, Shia J, Bandlamudi C, Mandelker D, et al. Microsatellite instability is associated with the presence of Lynch syndrome pan-cancer. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:286–95. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.00283 doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  67. Leenen CH, van Lier MG, van Doorn HC, van Leerdam ME, Kooi SG, de Waard J, et al. Prospective evaluation of molecular screening for Lynch syndrome in patients with endometrial cancer ≤ 70 years. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125:414–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.01.049 doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.01.049. [DOI] [PubMed]
  68. Libera L, Sahnane N, Carnevali IW, Cimetti L, Cerutti R, Chiaravalli AM, et al. Microsatellite analysis of sporadic and hereditary gynaecological cancer in routine diagnostics. J Clin Pathol 2017;70:792–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2017-204348 doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2017-204348. [DOI] [PubMed]
  69. Lin DI, Hecht JL. Targeted screening with combined age- and morphology-based criteria enriches detection of Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer. Int J Surg Pathol 2016;24:297–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066896916629782 doi: 10.1177/1066896916629782. [DOI] [PubMed]
  70. Mas-Moya J, Dudley B, Brand RE, Thull D, Bahary N, Nikiforova MN, Pai RK. Clinicopathological comparison of colorectal and endometrial carcinomas in patients with Lynch-like syndrome versus patients with Lynch syndrome. Hum Pathol 2015;46:1616–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2015.06.022 doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2015.06.022. [DOI] [PubMed]
  71. Masuda K, Banno K, Hirasawa A, Yanokura M, Tsuji K, Kobayashi Y, et al. Relationship of lower uterine segment cancer with Lynch syndrome: a novel case with an hMLH1 germline mutation. Oncol Rep 2012;28:1537–43. https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2012.2008 doi: 10.3892/or.2012.2008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  72. McConechy MK, Talhouk A, Li-Chang HH, Leung S, Huntsman DG, Gilks CB, McAlpine JN. Detection of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiencies by immunohistochemistry can effectively diagnose the microsatellite instability (MSI) phenotype in endometrial carcinomas. Gynecol Oncol 2015;137:306–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.01.541 doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.01.541. [DOI] [PubMed]
  73. Mercado RC, Hampel H, Kastrinos F, Steyerberg E, Balmana J, Stoffel E, et al. Performance of PREMM(1,2,6), MMRpredict, and MMRpro in detecting Lynch syndrome among endometrial cancer cases. Genet Med 2012;14:670–80. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2012.18 doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  74. Millar AL, Pal T, Madlensky L, Sherman C, Temple L, Mitri A, et al. Mismatch repair gene defects contribute to the genetic basis of double primary cancers of the colorectum and endometrium. Hum Mol Genet 1999;8:823–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/8.5.823 doi: 10.1093/hmg/8.5.823. [DOI] [PubMed]
  75. Modica I, Soslow RA, Black D, Tornos C, Kauff N, Shia J. Utility of immunohistochemistry in predicting microsatellite instability in endometrial carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2007;31:744–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000213428.61374.06 doi: 10.1097/01.pas.0000213428.61374.06. [DOI] [PubMed]
  76. Nagle CM, O’Mara TA, Tan Y, Buchanan DD, Obermair A, Blomfield P, et al. Endometrial cancer risk and survival by tumor MMR status. J Gynecol Oncol 2018;29:e39. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e39 doi: 10.3802/jgo.2018.29.e39. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  77. Najdawi F, Crook A, Maidens J, McEvoy C, Fellowes A, Pickett J, et al. Lessons learnt from implementation of a Lynch syndrome screening program for patients with gynaecological malignancy. Pathology 2017;49:457–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pathol.2017.05.004 doi: 10.1016/j.pathol.2017.05.004. [DOI] [PubMed]
  78. Ollikainen M, Abdel-Rahman WM, Moisio AL, Lindroos A, Kariola R, Jarvela I, et al. Molecular analysis of familial endometrial carcinoma: a manifestation of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer or a separate syndrome? J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4609–16. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.06.055 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.06.055. [DOI] [PubMed]
  79. Pecorino B, Rubino C, Guardalà VF, Galia A, Scollo P. Genetic screening in young women diagnosed with endometrial cancer. J Gynecol Oncol 2017;28:e4. https://doi.org/10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e4 doi: 10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  80. Planck M, Rambech E, Möslein G, Müller W, Olsson H, Nilbert M. High frequency of microsatellite instability and loss of mismatch-repair protein expression in patients with double primary tumors of the endometrium and colorectum. Cancer 2002;94:2502–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.10501 doi: 10.1002/cncr.10501. [DOI] [PubMed]
  81. Ring KL, Bruegl AS, Allen BA, Elkin EP, Singh N, Hartman AR, et al. Germline multi-gene hereditary cancer panel testing in an unselected endometrial cancer cohort. Mod Pathol 2016;29:1381–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2016.135 doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2016.135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  82. Rubio I, Ibáñez-Feijoo E, Andrés L, Aguirre E, Balmaña J, Blay P, et al. Analysis of Lynch syndrome mismatch repair genes in women with endometrial cancer. Oncology 2016;91:171–6. https://doi.org/10.1159/000447972 doi: 10.1159/000447972. [DOI] [PubMed]
  83. Salvador MU, Truelson MRF, Mason C, Souders B, LaDuca H, Dougall B, et al. Comprehensive paired tumor/germline testing for Lynch syndrome: bringing resolution to the diagnostic process. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:647–57. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.00696 doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00696. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  84. Sarode VR, Robinson L. Screening for Lynch syndrome by immunohistochemistry of mismatch repair proteins: significance of indeterminate result and correlation with mutational studies. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2019;143:1225–33. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2018-0201-OA doi: 10.5858/arpa.2018-0201-OA. [DOI] [PubMed]
  85. Shin SH, Yu EJ, Lee YK, Song YS, Seong MW, Park SS. Characteristics of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer patients with double primary cancers in endometrium and colorectum. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2015;58:112–16. https://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.2015.58.2.112 doi: 10.5468/ogs.2015.58.2.112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  86. Stelloo E, Jansen AML, Osse EM, Nout RA, Creutzberg CL, Ruano D, et al. Practical guidance for mismatch repair-deficiency testing in endometrial cancer. Ann Oncol 2017;28:96–102. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw542 doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdw542. [DOI] [PubMed]
  87. Strazzullo M, Cossu A, Baldinu P, Colombino M, Satta MP, Tanda F, et al. High-resolution methylation analysis of the hMLH1 promoter in sporadic endometrial and colorectal carcinomas. Cancer 2003;98:1540–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11651 doi: 10.1002/cncr.11651. [DOI] [PubMed]
  88. Svampane L, Strumfa I, Berzina D, Svampans M, Miklasevics E, Gardovskis J. Epidemiological analysis of hereditary endometrial cancer in a large study population. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014;289:1093–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3074-7 doi: 10.1007/s00404-013-3074-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  89. Takahashi K, Sato N, Sugawara T, Kato A, Sato T, Shimizu D, et al. Clinical characteristics of Lynch-like cases collaterally classified by Lynch syndrome identification strategy using universal screening in endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2017;147:388–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.08.016 doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.08.016. [DOI] [PubMed]
  90. Tian W, Bi R, Ren Y, He H, Shi S, Shan B, et al. Screening for hereditary cancers in patients with endometrial cancer reveals a high frequency of germline mutations in cancer predisposition genes. Int J Cancer 2019;145:1290–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.32389 doi: 10.1002/ijc.32389. [DOI] [PubMed]
  91. Wang Y, Shi C, Eisenberg R, Vnencak-Jones CL. Differences in microsatellite instability profiles between endometrioid and colorectal cancers: a potential cause for false-negative results? J Mol Diagn 2017;19:57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.07.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.07.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  92. Yoon SN, Ku JL, Shin YK, Kim KH, Choi JS, Jang EJ, et al. Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer in endometrial cancer patients. Int J Cancer 2008;122:1077–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22986 doi: 10.1002/ijc.22986. [DOI] [PubMed]
  93. 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 1999;116:1453–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5085(99)70510-X doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(99)70510-X. [DOI] [PubMed]
  94. de Jong AE, Hendriks YM, Kleibeuker JH, de Boer SY, Cats A, Griffioen G, et al. Decrease in mortality in Lynch syndrome families because of surveillance. Gastroenterology 2006;130:665–71. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2005.11.032 doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.11.032. [DOI] [PubMed]
  95. Järvinen HJ, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Aktán-Collán K, Peltomäki P, Aaltonen LA, Mecklin JP. Ten years after mutation testing for Lynch syndrome: cancer incidence and outcome in mutation-positive and mutation-negative family members. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:4793–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.23.7784 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.7784. [DOI] [PubMed]
  96. Ketabi Z, Gerdes AM, Mosgaard B, Ladelund S, Bernstein I. The results of gynecologic surveillance in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2014;133:526–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.03.012 doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.03.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  97. Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Bützow R, Leminen A, Lehtovirta P, Mecklin JP, Järvinen HJ. Surveillance for endometrial cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Int J Cancer 2007;120:821–4. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.22446 doi: 10.1002/ijc.22446. [DOI] [PubMed]
  98. Macrae F. A Randomised Double Blind Dose Non-inferiority Trial of a Daily Dose of 600 mg versus 300 mg versus 100 mg of Enteric Coated Aspirin as a Cancer Preventive in Carriers of a Germline Pathological Mismatch Repair Gene Defect. Lynch Syndrome. Project 3 in the Cancer Prevention Programme (CaPP3). URL: https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12617000804381 (accessed 2 January 2020).
  99. Arber N. A Randomised Double Blind Dose Non-inferiority Trial of a Daily Dose of 600 mg Versus 300 mg Versus 100 mg of Enteric Coated Aspirin as a Cancer Preventive in Carriers of a Germline Pathological Mismatch Repair Gene Defect. Lynch Syndrome. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/nct02497820 (accessed 2 January 2020).
  100. Ryan NAJ, Glaire MA, Blake D, Cabrera-Dandy M, Evans DG, Crosbie EJ. The proportion of endometrial cancers associated with Lynch syndrome: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Genet Med 2019;21:2167–80. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-019-0536-8 doi: 10.1038/s41436-019-0536-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  101. Resnick KE, Backes F, Hampel H, Matthews KS, Straughn JM, Cohn DE. A cost-effectiveness analysis of lynch syndrome screening among newly diagnosed endometrial cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol 2009;112(2 Suppl.):S4. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b11ecc. [DOI] [PubMed]
  102. Kwon JS, Scott JL, Gilks CB, Daniels MS, Sun CC, Lu KH. Testing women with endometrial cancer to detect Lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:2247–52. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.32.9979 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.9979. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  103. Bruegl AS, Djordjevic B, Rajyalakshmi L, Lu KH, Sun CCL, Broaddus R. Cost analysis comparing universal tumor testing to clinically based criteria in the evaluation of endometrial adenocarcinomas for Lynch syndrome. Gynecol Oncol 2014;133(Suppl. 1):45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.03.128 doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.03.128. [DOI]
  104. Goverde A, Spaander MC, van Doorn HC, Dubbink HJ, van den Ouweland AM, Tops CM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of routine screening for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer patients up to 70 years of age. Gynecol Oncol 2016;143:453–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.10.008 doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2016.10.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  105. Lancaster JM, Powell CB, Kauff ND, Cass I, Chen LM, Lu KH, et al. Society of Gynecologic Oncologists Education Committee statement on risk assessment for inherited gynecologic cancer predispositions. Gynecol Oncol 2007;107:159–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.09.031 doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.09.031. [DOI] [PubMed]
  106. Arrigoni A, Sprujevnik T, Alvisi V, Rossi A, Ricci G, Pennazio M, et al. Clinical identification and long-term surveillance of 22 hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer Italian families. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005;17:213–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00042737-200502000-00013 doi: 10.1097/00042737-200502000-00013. [DOI] [PubMed]
  107. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programme. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
  108. Pandor A, Eastham J, Beverley C, Chilcott J, Paisley S. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism using tandem mass spectrometry: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2004;8(12). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta8120 doi: 10.3310/hta8120. [DOI] [PubMed]
  109. Thorn J, Coast J, Andronis L. Interpretation of the expected value of perfect information and research recommendations: a systematic review and empirical investigation. Med Decis Making 2016;36:285–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X15586552 doi: 10.1177/0272989X15586552. [DOI] [PubMed]
  110. Snowsill T, Huxley N, Hoyle M, Jones-Hughes T, Coelho H, Cooper C, et al. A systematic review and economic evaluation of diagnostic strategies for Lynch syndrome. Health Technol Assess 2014;18(58). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18580 doi: 10.3310/hta18580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  111. Barrow P. Hereditary Colorectal Cancer: Registration, Screening and Prognostic Biomarker Analysis. PhD Thesis. Manchester: The University of Manchester; 2014.
  112. Menko FH, Ter Stege JA, van der Kolk LE, Jeanson KN, Schats W, Moha DA, Bleiker EMA. The uptake of presymptomatic genetic testing in hereditary breast-ovarian cancer and Lynch syndrome: a systematic review of the literature and implications for clinical practice. Fam Cancer 2019;18:127–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-018-0089-z doi: 10.1007/s10689-018-0089-z. [DOI] [PubMed]
  113. Bruwer Z, Futter M, Ramesar R. Communicating cancer risk within an African context: experiences, disclosure patterns and uptake rates following genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. Patient Educ Couns 2013;92:53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.02.001 doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed]
  114. Møller P, Seppälä T, Bernstein I, Holinski-Feder E, Sala P, Evans DG, 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;66:1657–64. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311403 doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311403. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  115. Seppälä TT, Ahadova A, Dominguez-Valentin M, Macrae F, Evans DG, Therkildsen C, et al. Lack of association between screening interval and cancer stage in Lynch syndrome may be accounted for by over-diagnosis; a prospective Lynch syndrome database report. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2019;17:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-019-0106-8 doi: 10.1186/s13053-019-0106-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  116. Seppälä T, Pylvänäinen K, Evans DG, Järvinen H, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Bernstein I, et al. Colorectal cancer incidence in path_MLH1 carriers subjected to different follow-up protocols: a Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database report. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2017;15:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13053-017-0078-5 doi: 10.1186/s13053-017-0078-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  117. Thompson BA, Spurdle AB, Plazzer JP, Greenblatt MS, Akagi K, Al-Mulla F, et al. Application of a 5-tiered scheme for standardized classification of 2,360 unique mismatch repair gene variants in the InSiGHT locus-specific database. Nat Genet 2014;46:107–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2854 doi: 10.1038/ng.2854. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  118. UK Genetic Testing Network. Colorectal Cancer, Hereditary Nonpolyposis and Lynch Syndrome. 2018. URL: https://ukgtn.nhs.uk/find-a-test/search-by-disorder-gene/colorectal-cancer-hereditary-nonpolyposis-and-lynch-syndrome-534/ (accessed 14 December 2019).
  119. Slade I, Hanson H, George A, Kohut K, Strydom A, Wordsworth S, Rahman N, MCG programme. A cost analysis of a cancer genetic service model in the UK. J Community Genet 2016;7:185–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-016-0266-4 doi: 10.1007/s12687-016-0266-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  120. Barrow P, Green K, Clancy T, Lalloo F, Hill J, Evans DG. Improving the uptake of predictive testing and colorectal screening in Lynch syndrome: a regional primary care survey. Clin Genet 2015;87:517–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.12559 doi: 10.1111/cge.12559. [DOI] [PubMed]
  121. Barnetson RA, Tenesa A, Farrington SM, Nicholl ID, Cetnarskyj R, Porteous ME, et al. Identification and survival of carriers of mutations in DNA mismatch-repair genes in colon cancer. N Engl J Med 2006;354:2751–63. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa053493 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa053493. [DOI] [PubMed]
  122. Heald B, Plesec T, Liu X, Pai R, Patil D, Moline J, et al. Implementation of universal microsatellite instability and immunohistochemistry screening for diagnosing Lynch syndrome in a large academic medical center. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:1336–40. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.45.1674 doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.45.1674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  123. Tutlewska K, Lubinski J, Kurzawski G. Germline deletions in the EPCAM gene as a cause of Lynch syndrome – literature review. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2013;11:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1897-4287-11-9 doi: 10.1186/1897-4287-11-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  124. Mersch J, Brown N, Pirzadeh-Miller S, Mundt E, Cox HC, Brown K, et al. Prevalence of variant reclassification following hereditary cancer genetic testing. JAMA 2018;320:1266–74. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.13152 doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.13152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  125. Burn J, Sheth H, Elliott F, Reed L, Macrae F, Mecklin JP, et al. Cancer prevention with aspirin in hereditary colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome), 10-year follow-up and registry-based 20-year data in the CAPP2 study: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2020;395:1855–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30366-4 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30366-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  126. Watkins JC, Yang EJ, Muto MG, Feltmate CM, Berkowitz RS, Horowitz NS, et al. Universal screening for mismatch-repair deficiency in endometrial cancers to identify patients with Lynch syndrome and Lynch-like syndrome. Int J Gynecol Pathol 2017;36:115–27. https://doi.org/10.1097/PGP.0000000000000312 doi: 10.1097/PGP.0000000000000312. [DOI] [PubMed]

RESOURCES