Abstract
Objective
Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant hereditary disorder resulting from germline mutation in at least one of the four mismatch repair genes or in EPCAM gene. From a clinical perspective, LS patients exhibit an increased predisposition to multiple primary malignancies and early age of onset compared to general population. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of all the genitourinary manifestations of LS, focusing on incidence, diagnosis, clinical features, therapeutic strategies, and screening protocols.
Methods
Previous literature was assessed through Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. A narrative review of the most relevant articles from January 1996 to June 2021 on urological manifestations of LS was provided.
Results
In the LS tumor spectrum, upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) represents the third most frequent malignancy, and the first most common cancer in the urological field, with an approximately 14-fold increased risk of developing UTUC compared to general population. LS diagnosis among patients experiencing UTUC as first malignancy is a step-by-step process, including (i) clinical criteria, (ii) molecular testing, and (iii) genetic testing to confirm the hereditary disorder. The current European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines recommend to perform molecular testing among UTUC patients under 65 years old, or UTUC patients with personal history of LS-related tumor, or UTUC patients with one first-degree relative under the age of 50 years with LS-related tumor, or UTUC patients with two first-degree relatives with LS-related tumor regardless of age of onset. Newly diagnosed LS patients should be referred to a multidisciplinary management, including gastroenterologists and gynecologists. Finally, considering the increased risk of metachronous recurrence, treatments other than radical nephroureterectomy may be a valuable therapeutic alternative. Whether urological malignancies other than UTUC should be included in the LS tumor spectrum is still controversial.
Conclusion
Considering the strict association between UTUC and LS, we believe that the urologist should recognize patients at increased risk for hereditary disease according to current EAU clinical criteria and address them to a comprehensive diagnostic algorithm, including molecular evaluation and genetic testing. To date, literature lacks clear evidence regarding the role of LS in developing bladder cancer, prostate cancer, or renal cell carcinoma, and current data are still inconclusive, highlighting the urgent need for further studies.
Keywords: Hereditary disease, Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer, Lynch syndrome, Mismatch repair, Upper tract urothelial carcinoma
1. Introduction
First described by Lynch et al. in 1966 [1], Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant hereditary disease, caused by germline mutation of one of the four mismatch repair (MMR) genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) or EPCAM gene (resulting in MSH2 inactivation by promoter hypermethylation) [2]. Notably, to be clinical manifest, LS requires inactivation of both alleles of one of the four MMR genes; thus, according to the Knudson's two-hit hypothesis, mutation in the first allele is inherited, predisposing to the acquired mutation on the second allele. The inactivation of MMR genes invalidates the proper correction of single-based nucleotide mismatches and insertion-deletion loops which may occur during DNA replication, resulting in accumulation of somatic mutations in regions of short DNA repeating sequences (microsatellites regions) [3]. This phenomenon is known as microsatellite instability (MSI) and increases the risk of multiple primary malignancies and early age of onset [2]. From a clinical perspective, although LS is generally knows as hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), LS is characterized by both colorectal (life-time risk: 30%–73%) and extracolonic malignancies, including endometrial cancer (life-time risk: 30%–51%) and upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) (life-time risk: 2%–20%) (Fig. 1) [4,5]. Kamiza et al. [6], analyzing the Han Chinese population, estimated an hazard-ratios for colorectal cancer of 23.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.2–58.2) and 13.2 (95% CI: 5.9–29.6) among male and female LS patients, respectively.
Figure 1.
Sites at increased risk of developing primary malignancies among Lynch syndrome patients.
Despite growing interest in LS-related colorectal cancer, evidence regarding the role of LS in the urological field is still sparse and conflicting. In this review, we aimed to summarize the available literature on this topic, focusing on different clinical presentation, incidence, diagnosis, tumor features, and treatment of all potential urological malignancies in the broad LS tumor spectrum.
2. UTUC
2.1. Relative risk (RR) and cumulative life-time risk of developing UTUC among LS patients
UTUC represents the third most frequent malignancy in the LS tumor spectrum, after colorectal and endometrial cancers (Fig. 1), and the most common cancer in the urological field [2]. The germline mutation rates among LS patients experiencing UTUC are 63%–100%, 0–25%, and 0–15% for MSH2-, MLH1-, and MSH6-mutation carriers, respectively (Supplementary Fig. 1) [7]. Sijmons et al. [8] reported a RR of developing UTUC among LS patients of 14.0 compared to general population (95% CI: 6.7–29.4). Furthermore, several studies investigated the risk of developing UTUC according to patients' characteristics, such as gender or pathogenic variants [[8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]]. Three [8,10,11] out of four [13] studies reported an increased risk of developing UTUC among male LS patients, recording a cumulative life-time risk at 70 years varying from 0.2% [8] to 9.4% [11] and from 0.1% [8] to 6.0% [11] among male and female individuals, respectively. Four studies specifically focused on different pathogenic variants [9,10,12,13]: MSH2-mutation carriers were found to be at increased risk of developing UTUC (cumulative life-time risk at 70 years: 6.9%) compared to MLH1- and MSH6-mutation carriers (2.2% and 2.9%, respectively) [13]. Similarly, Barrow et al. [12] observed a RR of 42.7 and 61.9 of developing pyelocaliceal and ureteral tumor, respectively, among LS patients compared to general population. A personalized cumulative life-time risk calculator based on patient age, gender, and involved gene is provided by the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database (http://www.plsd.edu/).
2.2. LS diagnosis among UTUC patients
LS diagnosis among patients experiencing UTUC as first malignancy is a step-by-step process, starting from clinical suspicion and leading to genetic test to be conclusive [14], as depicted in Fig. 2.
Figure 2.
Flow chart for diagnosis of LS in patients experiencing UTUC without known DNA MMR gene mutation. EAU, European Association of Urology; UTUC, upper tract urothelial carcinoma; LS, Lynch syndrome; FDR, first-degree relative; MSI, microsatellite instability; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; MMR, mismatch repair; IHC, immunohistochemistry.
2.2.1. Clinical criteria
The first recognition of the association between UTUC and LS dates back to 1999 (Amsterdam II criteria) [15], when renal pelvis and ureter tumors were included into clinical criteria for LS diagnosis among colorectal patients (Table 1). Unfortunately, the Amsterdam II criteria [15] and the subsequent Revised Bethesda guidelines [16] were specifically focused on colorectal patients, considering UTUC only as part of the LS tumor spectrum.
Table 1.
Clinical criteria for LS diagnosis.
| Clinical criteria | Description |
|---|---|
| Amsterdam I criteria (1991) [58] | All the following criteria:
|
| Amsterdam II criteria (1999) [15] | All the following criteria:
|
| Revised Bethesda guidelines (2004) [16] | Any of the following criteria:
|
LS, Lynch syndrome.
In 2004, Rouprêt et al. [17] codified clinical criteria specifically focused on UTUC patients for the first time, suggesting to perform further analyses among UTUC individuals <60 years old and/or with personal and/or family history of LS-related tumors. Over the last 15 years, various clinical criteria have been suggested in order to improve hereditary-like UTUC patients’ selection while limiting costs [3,18,19]. Lastly, the current European Association of Urology guidelines on UTUC (2021) [20] recommended to perform molecular testing among (i) UTUC patients under the age of 65 years or (ii) UTUC patients with personal history of LS-related tumor, or (iii) UTUC patients with one first-degree relative (FDR) under the age of 50 years with LS-related tumor, or (iv) UTUC patients with two FDRs with LS-related tumor regardless of age of onset.
2.2.2. Molecular evaluation
Patients fulfilling clinical criteria for LS should be referred to molecular testing on tumor tissue specimen, including polymerase chain reaction for MSI status evaluation and immunohistochemistry (IHC) for MMR protein expression detection.
Polymerase chain reaction requires amplification of standardized DNA markers from a tumor tissue specimen and a matched healthy tissue specimen. Over the years, several DNA markers panels have been proposed, differing in type (mono- or di-nucleotide) and number of markers [21,22]. Presence of additional peaks in above 30% [2], or at least 2/5 DNA markers [21], or at least 4/15 DNA markers [17] in tumor tissue specimen is defined as high-frequency MSI (H-MSI) and is suspected of LS. However, since approximately 10%–15% of sporadic tumors exhibit H-MSI [23], sporadic mechanisms of MSI should be ruled out with additional investigations, such as IHC [17,24,25].
IHC requires antibodies against MMR proteins to stain tumor tissue specimen and a matched healthy tissue specimen [14]. Over the years, several IHC panels have been proposed, differing in combination and number of MMR antibodies [26]. Absence or reduction of nuclear staining (<5% [27,28] or <20% [29]) in tumor tissue specimen is defined as loss of MMR proteins and is suspected of LS [2,26]; hereditary mechanism behind loss of MMR proteins should be confirmed at subsequent genetic testing [30].
Moreover, since molecular testing failure could be related to technical challenges in DNA extraction or to incomplete tissue fixation [23,26], molecular evaluation should be interpreted in light of clinical judgement [16] and patients with strong clinical suspicion of LS should be referred to genetic testing [18,31].
2.2.3. Histological evaluation
Presence of intratumoral lymphocytes, inverted growth pattern, and pushing borders on tumor tissue specimen has recently been proposed as additional markers in the LS diagnostic pathway [3,[17], [18], [19],24,25]; however, there is no consensus regarding the role of histological evaluation in the LS diagnostic algorithm and further studies analyzing the positive and negative predictive value of histological evaluation on UTUC specimen are urgently needed.
2.2.4. Genetic testing, multidisciplinary management, and genetic counselling
LS diagnosis requires genetic testing on blood sample to be conclusive. The coding exons of MMR gene identified by IHC are amplified and sequenced to confirm germline mutation [3,[17], [18], [19],24,25].
Considering the life-time risk of other LS-related primary malignancies (Fig. 1), newly diagnosed LS patients should be referred to a multidisciplinary management [3,17,24,25], including gastroenterologists and gynecologists. Non-urological screening recommendations for LS patients are depicted in Fig. 3. Colonoscopy should be performed every 2 years starting at 25 years old for MLH1- and MSH2-mutation-carriers or 35 years old for MSH6- and PMS2-mutation-carriers [32,33]; in all cases, age of colorectal cancer onset in the youngest member of the family should be considered and screening should be started 5 years earlier [5]. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy should be considered every 1–3 years starting at 30–35 years old in case of family history of upper digestive tract tumors [5]; while screening and treating Helicobacter pylori should be performed in all LS patients [5,32,33]. Transvaginal ultrasound and endometrial sampling should be performed every 1 year starting at 30–35 years old [5].
Figure 3.
Non-urological screening recommendations for Lynch syndrome patients in a multimodal screening approach. EGD, esophagogastroduodenoscopy; CRC, colorectal cancer.
Finally, considering the autosomal dominant inheritance, newly diagnosed LS patients’ FDRs should be referred to a genetic counselling [3,[17], [18], [19],24,25], ensuring an opportunity for the whole family to receive proper screening protocols.
2.3. Clinical and pathological features of UTUC among LS patients
A clinical and pathological analysis of LS-related UTUC has been performed by several publications [8,11,13,17,27,28,[34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]]; however, only two studies directly compared hereditary and sporadic UTUC [34,40]. When considering LS-related UTUC, patients were generally 10 years younger (p<0.0001 and p=0.005) [34,40] and with no smoking habit (p=0.03) [40] compared to sporadic UTUC patients, with ureteral location being involved in approximately 50% of cases (p=0.001 and p=0.001) [34,40]. No differences were found between LS-related and sporadic UTUCs according to tumor size [34], grade [34,40], or stage [40].
2.4. Treatment of UTUC among LS patients
When considering therapeutic approaches, radical nephroureterectomy [17,28,35,39,42] (41 patients) was over twice as common as kidney-sparing surgery, including ureteroscopic laser ablation [38] (13 patients with 15 lesions) and segmental ureterectomy [35] (1 patient). Hubosky et al. [38] performed ureteroscopic laser ablation involving neodymium:yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) laser and holium:YAG laser for coagulation and ablation or resection, respectively. Successful kidney-sparing procedure was achieved in 13 out of 15 lesions, nine of which requiring only one session. Surveillance scheme included retrograde pyelogram and ureteroscopy every 6 months for 5 years, and annual thereafter, while the contralateral renal unit was evaluated by retrograde pyelogram every 6 months for 5 years, and annual thereafter. Any changes in baseline pyelogram were investigated with additional computed tomography (CT) scan or magnetic resonance imaging. During a mean follow-up of approximately 5 years, three patients experienced metachronous ipsilateral UTUC (within a median time of 64 months) requiring ureteroscopic ablation, while seven patients experienced metachronous bladder cancer (BCa) (within a median time of 10 months) requiring radical cystectomy in two out of seven individuals. Iatrogenic ureteric stricture requiring stenting was recorded in four patients. Considering the potential risk of metachronous contralateral recurrence, the authors concluded that kidney-sparing surgery with endoscopic laser ablation seems feasible among LS patients recording satisfactory oncological outcomes, on the condition that patients undergo a strict surveillance scheme. Taken together, these results should be interpreted as a noteworthy starting point for additional research efforts in this field and further studies focusing on kidney-sparing procedure among LS patients are urgently needed.
2.5. Screening protocol for urothelial carcinoma among LS patients
Considering the increased risk of developing UTUC, LS patients may benefit from a strict screening protocol for early detection of urothelial involvement.
No consensus currently exists regarding the proper screening protocol, and great variability still exists according to methods [31,[43], [44], [45], [46]] and screening starting age [10,44,46], ranging from 25 [46] to 50 years [10]. Screening methods generally included urinalysis [[44], [45], [46]] and urinary cytology [31,43,45,46], although Myrhøj et al. [43], recording a sensitivity of 29%, stated that urinary cytology should not represent an effective screening method among LS patients. Other suggested screening methods included NMP22 [45], abdominal ultrasound [44,45], CT scan [31,44,45], and cystoscopy [31,44,45]. Acher et al. [45] suggested an individualized screening protocol based on presence of MSH2-mutation and personal and/or family history of prior urothelial cancer. We suggest a screening protocol among all LS patients starting from 45 to 50 years old, involving urinalysis and urinary cytology every year and abdominal ultrasound every 2 years. However, we believe that MSH2-mutation carriers, as well as patients with family history of UTUC or BCa, could benefit from a more stringent follow-up, alternating abdominal ultrasound and CT scan every year [30]. Fig. 4 depicts current screening protocols suggested by several authors [30,31,[43], [44], [45], [46]]; however, the broad variability in screening recommendations brings to light the urgent need of a consistent screening protocol in terms of methods and starting age, balancing the likely benefit of early diagnosis and the potential risk of over-diagnosis and radiation exposure.
Figure 4.
Current urological screening recommendations for Lynch syndrome patients. CT, computed tomography.
3. BCa
The increased risk of developing urothelial carcinoma among LS patients was first reported in 1990 by Vasen et al. [47]. However, although the association between LS and UTUC has been extensively investigated and UTUC has been included in clinical criteria for LS since 1999 (Amsterdam II criteria) [15], little is known regarding the role of LS in BCa development.
Cumulative life-time risk of BCa at 70 years ranged from 4.1% (95% CI: 2.6%–5.5%) [13] to 7.5% (95% CI: 3.1%–11.9%) [48] among LS male patients and from 1.0% (95% CI: 0–2.4%) [48] to 2.6% (95%CI: 1.5%–3.5%) [13] among LS female patients, with a RR of 4.2 and 2.2 for male and female individuals, respectively [48]. Overall, MSH2, MLH1, and MSH6 gene mutations were involved in 69%–79%, 10%–29%, and 0–19% of LS patients experiencing BCa [7]. Similarly to UTUC, MSH2-mutation carriers exhibited the highest risk of developing BCa, with cumulative life-time risk of 12.3% (95% CI: 4.3%–20.3%) and 2.6% (95% CI: 0–3.8%) among male and female patients, respectively [48]. Geary et al. [49] analyzing a LS cohort of 982 patients, recorded a RR of 3.6 and 1.0 among MSH2- and MLH1-mutation carriers, respectively, compared to general population. Conversely, Barrow et al. [12] did not observe a significant predisposition to BCa development for any MMR mutation compared to the general population.
Skeldon et al. [37] identified 14 out of 321 (4%) LS patients experiencing BCa during a median follow-up of 9 years. Overall, one patient had BCa diagnosed first; one patient had UTUC diagnosed first; and four patients experienced BCa and UTUC synchronously. Regarding tumor stage, LS-related BCa was non-invasive (pTa/T1) in 93% of cases, with 71% being high grade [37].
Considering the lack of clear evidence and the well-known association between UTUC and BCa, the role of germline MMR mutation in developing BCa should be further investigated.
4. Prostate cancer (PCa)
Whether PCa should be included in the LS tumor spectrum is still controversial [7], with several studies reporting a statistically significant increased risk of developing PCa among LS patients compared to general population [11,50,51], whereas others authors found no significant evidence for an increased risk [52,53].
A recent meta-analysis from 23 studies [54] recorded a 2.13-fold increased risk of developing PCa among LS patients (95% CI: 1.45–2.80) and a 2.11-fold increased risk among LS patients with a prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer (95% CI: 1.27–2.95). Haraldsdottir et al. [51] compared PCa incidence among 188 LS patients and the general population from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry (mean follow-up and standard deviation: 6.2±7.2 years). Overall, 11 (5.9%) LS patients experienced PCa during the study period, with a median age at diagnosis of 64 years of age. Of whom, 5 (45%) individuals were diagnosed with localized disease, 1 (9%) with locally advanced, and 1 (9%) with metastatic disease; in four cases, tumor stage was not reported [51]. No significant differences were found according to age at diagnosis and tumor stage [51]. Overall, MSH2-, MLH1-, MSH6-, and PMS2-mutation carriers were seven, one, two, and one, respectively [51]. Similarly, Barrow et al. [12] estimated a 10-fold increased risk of PCa among MSH2-mutation carriers (RR: 10.41; 95% CI: 2.80–26.65). Starting from these results, the authors suggested prostate-specific antigen screening among MSH2-mutation carriers starting from 40 years old [12].
To date, literature lacks clear evidence regarding the association between LS and risk of developing PCa, and current data are still inconclusive.
5. Renal cell carcinoma
The association between LS and kidney cancer has been rarely investigated [7,53]. Aarnio et al. [53] reported a significantly increased standardized incidence ratio of 4.7 (95% CI: 1.0–14) for renal cell carcinoma among LS patients, with a cumulative life-time risk at 70 years of 3.3% compared to 0.8% among general population.
However, to date the potential association between LS and renal cell carcinoma has not been yet clarified, and further studies are urgently required.
6. Testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT)
TGCT is currently not included in the LS tumor spectrum [16], and evidence is still sparse and limited [7,55]. Cárcano et al. [56] evaluated MSI genotype among 133 TGCT patients using five quasi-monomorphic mono-nucleotide markers, finding microsatellite stable and low-frequency MSI genotypes in 126 (95%) and 7 (5%) individuals, respectively; H-MSI was not detected in the entire cohort. Conversely, Mayer et al. [57] recorded H-MSI in four out of 12 patients (33%) after late recurrence from non-seminoma TGCT.
Considering the lack of current data, this association between LS and TGCT still needs to be extensively investigated.
7. Conclusion
Although literature is still sparse, LS represents a pivotal autosomal dominant disease in the urological practice, especially among individuals experiencing UTUC. Since the prompt diagnosis of LS can lead to a significant oncological benefit both for the patient and the whole family, we believe that the urologist should recognize patients at increased risk for hereditary disease according to current European Association of Urology clinical criteria and address them to a comprehensive diagnostic algorithm, including molecular evaluation and genetic testing.
Author contributions
Study concept and design: Marco Moschini, Philippe E. Spiess, Andrea Necchi.
Data acquisition: Chiara Lonati, Marco Moschini.
Data analysis: Chiara Lonati.
Drafting of manuscript: Chiara Lonati.
Critical revision of the manuscript: Claudio Simeone, Nazareno Suardi, Philippe E. Spiess, Andrea Necchi, Marco Moschini.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Peer review under responsibility of Tongji University.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2022.05.009.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
The following is the Supplementary data to this article:
Figs1.
Germline mutation rates in Lynch syndrome-related upper tract urothelial carcinoma.
References
- 1.Lynch H.T., Shaw M., Magnuson C.W. Hereditary factors in cancer. Study of two large midwestern kindreds. Arch Intern Med. 1966;117:206–212. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Giardiello F.M., Allen J.I., Axilbund J.E., Boland C.R., Burke C.A., Burt R.W., et al. Guidelines on genetic evaluation and management of lynch task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2014;147:502–526. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.04.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Pradere B., Lotan Y., Roupret M. Lynch syndrome in upper tract urothelial carcinoma: significance, screening, and surveillance. Curr Opin Urol. 2017;27:48–55. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Mork M., Rouprêt M., Margulis V., Raman J., Lotan Y., O'Brien T., et al. Lynch syndrome: a primer for urologists and panel recommendations. J Urol. 2015;194:21–29. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Stjepanovic N., Moreira L., Carneiro F., Balaguer F., Cervantes A., Balmaña J., et al. Hereditary gastrointestinal cancers: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:1558–1571. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Kamiza A.B., Wang W.C., You J.F., Tang R., Chien H.T., Lai C.H., et al. Cumulative risks of colorectal cancer in Han Chinese patients with Lynch syndrome in Taiwan. Sci Rep. 2021;11:8899. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-88289-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Goldberg H., Wallis C.J.D., Klaassen Z., Chandrasekar T., Fleshner N., Zlotta A.R. Lynch syndrome in urologic malignancies—what does the urologist need to know? Urology. 2019;134:24–31. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Sijmons R.H., Kiemeney L.A.L.M., Witjes J.A., Vasen H.F.A. Urinary tract cancer and hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: risks and screening options. J Urol. 1998;160:466–470. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Vasen H.F.A., Wijnen J.T., Menko F.H., Kleibeuker J.H., Taal B.G., Griffioen G., et al. Cancer risk in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer diagnosed by mutation analysis. Gastroenterology. 1996;110:1020–1027. doi: 10.1053/gast.1996.v110.pm8612988. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Watson P., Vasen H.F.A., Mecklin J.P., Bernstein I., Aarnio M., Järvinen H.J., et al. The risk of extra-colonic, extra-endometrial cancer in the Lynch syndrome. Int J Cancer. 2008;123:444–449. doi: 10.1002/ijc.23508. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Engel C., Loeffler M., Steinke V., Rahner N., Holinski-Feder E., Dietmaier W., et al. Risks of less common cancers in proven mutation carriers with Lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4409–4415. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.43.2278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Barrow P.J., Ingham S., O'Hara C., Green K., McIntyre I., Lalloo F., et al. The spectrum of urological malignancy in Lynch syndrome. Fam Cancer. 2013;12:57–63. doi: 10.1007/s10689-012-9573-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Joost P., Therkildsen C., Dominguez-Valentin M., Jönsson M., Nilbert M. Urinary tract cancer in lynch syndrome; increased risk in carriers of MSH2 mutations. Urology. 2015;86:1212–1217. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.08.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Lonati C., Moschini M., Simeone C. Lynch syndrome in urological practice: diagnosis, therapeutic strategies, and screening for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. Curr Opin Urol. 2022;32:40–47. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000936. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Vasen H.F., Watson P., Mecklin J.P., Lynch T.H. New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology. 1999;116:1453–1456. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5085(99)70510-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Umar A., Boland C. Revised Bethesda guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:261–268. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djh034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Rouprêt M., Catto J., Coulet F., Azzouzi A.R., Amira N., Karmouni T., et al. Microsatellite instability as indicator of MSH2 gene mutation in patients with upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma. J Med Genet. 2004;41:e91. doi: 10.1136/jmg.2003.017871. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Mork M., Hubosky S.G., Rouprêt M., Margulis V., Raman J., Lotan Y., et al. Lynch syndrome: a primer for urologists and panel recommendations. J Urol. 2015;194:21–29. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Audenet F., Colin P., Yates D.R., Ouzzane A., Pignot G., Long J.-A., et al. A proportion of hereditary upper urinary tract urothelial carcinomas are misclassified as sporadic according to a multi-institutional database analysis: proposal of patient-specific risk identification tool. BJU Int. 2012;110:E583–E589. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11298.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Rouprêt M., Babjuk M., Burger M., Capoun O., Cohen D., Roupre M., et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: 2020 update. Eur Urol. 2021;9:80–81. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.05.042. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Boland C.R., Thibodeau S.N., Hamilton S.R., Sidransky D., Burr R.W., Meltzer A.J., et al. A National Cancer Institute Workshop on microsatellite instability for cancer detection and familial predisposition: development of international criteria for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 1998;59:249–256. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Buhard O., Suraweera N., Lectard A., Duval A., Hamelin R. Quasimonomorphic mononucleotide repeats for high-level microsatellite instability analysis. Dis Markers. 2004;20:251–257. doi: 10.1155/2004/159347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Vasen H.F.A., Blanco I., Aktan-Collan K., Gopie J.P., 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;62:812–823. 6. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304356. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Rouprêt M., Yates D.R., Comperat E., Cussenot O. Upper urinary tract urothelial cell carcinomas and other urological malignancies involved in the hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) tumor spectrum. Eur Urol. 2008;54:1226–1236. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.08.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Rouprêt M., Azzouzi A.-R., Cussenot O. Microsatellite instability and transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. BJU Int. 2005;96:489–492. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05671.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Snowsill T., Coelho H., Huxley N., Jones-Hughes T., Briscoe S., Frayling I.M., et al. Molecular testing for Lynch syndrome in people with colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21:1–238. doi: 10.3310/hta21510. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Hartmann A., Zanardo L., Bocker-Edmonston T., Blaszyk H., Dietmaier W., Stoehr R., et al. Frequent microsatellite instability in sporadic tumors of the upper urinary tract. Cancer Res. 2002;62:6796–6802. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Urakami S., Inoshita N., Oka S., Miyama Y., Nomura S., Arai M., et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of patients with upper urinary tract urothelial cancer with loss of immunohistochemical expression of the DNA mismatch repair proteins in universal screening. Int J Urol. 2018;25:151–156. doi: 10.1111/iju.13481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Catto J.W., Azzouzi A.R., Amira N., Rehman I., Feeley K.M., Cross S.S., et al. Distinct patterns of microsatellite instability are seen in tumours of the urinary tract. Oncogene. 2003;22:8699–8706. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1206964. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Lonati C., Necchi A., Gómez Rivas J., Afferi L., Laukhtina E., Martini A., et al. Upper tract urothelial carcinoma in the Lynch syndrome tumour spectrum: a comprehensive overview from the European Association of Urology-Young Academic Urologists and the Global Society of Rare Genitourinary Tumors. Eur Urol Oncol. 2022;5:30–41. doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2021.11.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Zachhau P., Walter S. Urinary tract cancer in patients with hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2012;46:5–7. doi: 10.3109/00365599.2011.599334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Monahan K.J., Bradshaw N., Dolwani S., Desouza B., Dunlop M.G., East J.E., 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) Gut. 2020;69:411–444. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319915. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.van Leerdam M.E., Roos V.H., van Hooft J.E., Balaguer F., Dekker E., Kaminski M.F., et al. Endoscopic management of Lynch syndrome and of familial risk of colorectal cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2019;51:1082–1093. doi: 10.1055/a-1016-4977. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Crockett D.G., Wagner D.G., Holmng S., Johansson S.L., Lynch H.T. Upper urinary tract carcinoma in Lynch syndrome cases. J Urol. 2011;185:1627–1630. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.12.102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Aarnio M., Säily M., Juhola M., Gylling A., Peltomäki P., Järvinen H.J., et al. Uroepithelial and kidney carcinoma in Lynch syndrome. Fam Cancer. 2012;11:395–401. doi: 10.1007/s10689-012-9526-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Bai S.T., Nunez A.L., Wei S., Ziober A., Yao Y., Tomaszewski J.E., et al. Microsatellite instability and TARBP2 mutation study in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2013;139:765–770. doi: 10.1309/AJCPBSLP8XHSWLOW. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Skeldon S.C., Semotiuk K., Aronson M., Holter S., Gallinger S., Pollett A., et al. Patients with Lynch syndrome mismatch repair gene mutations are at higher risk for not only upper tract urothelial cancer but also bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 2013;63:379–385. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.07.047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Hubosky S.G., Boman B.M., Charles S., Bibbo M., Bagley D.H. Ureteroscopic management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) in patients with Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome) BJU Int. 2013;112:813–819. doi: 10.1111/bju.12008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Therkildsen C., Eriksson P., Höglund M., Jönsson M., Sjödahl G., Nilbert M., et al. Molecular subtype classification of urothelial carcinoma in Lynch syndrome. Mol Oncol. 2018;12:1286–1295. doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.12325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Donahue T.F., Clendenning M., Templeton A.S., Walsh M.F. Genomic characterization of upper-tract urothelial carcinoma in patients with Lynch syndrome abstract. JCO Precis Oncol. 2018;2018 doi: 10.1200/PO.17.00143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Metcalfe M.J., Petros F.G., Rao P., Mork M.E., Xiao L.C., Broaddus R.R., et al. Universal point of care testing for Lynch syndrome in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. J Urol. 2018;199:60–65. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.08.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Ito T., Kono K., Eguchi H., Okazaki Y., Yamamoto G., Tachikawa T., et al. Prevalence of Lynch syndrome among patients with upper urinary tract carcinoma in a Japanese hospital-based population. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2019;50:80–88. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyz140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Myrhøj T., Andersen M.B., Bernstein I. Screening for urinary tract cancer with urine cytology in Lynch syndrome and familial colorectal cancer. Fam Cancer. 2008;7:303–307. doi: 10.1007/s10689-008-9193-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Koornstra J.J., Mourits M.J., Sijmons R.H., Leliveld A.M., Hollema H., Kleibeuker J.H. Management of extracolonic tumours in patients with Lynch syndrome. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:400–408. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70041-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Acher P., Kiela G., Thomas K., O'Brien T. Towards a rational strategy for the surveillance of patients with Lynch syndrome (hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer) for upper tract transitional cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2010;106:300–302. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09443.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Lindor N., Petersen G.M., Hadley D.W., Kinney A.Y., Miesfeldt S., Lu K.H., et al. Recommendations for the care predisposition to lynch syndrome. JAMA. 2014;296:1507–1517. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.12.1507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Vasen H.F.A., Johan G., Offerhaus A., Den Hartog Jager F.C.A., Menko F.H., Nagengast F.M., et al. The tumour spectrum in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: a study of 24 kindreds in The Netherlands. Int J Cancer. 1990;46:31–34. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910460108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Van der Post R.S., Kiemeney L.A., Ligtenberg M.J.L., Witjes J.A., Hulsbergen-van de Kaa C.A., Bodmer D., et al. Risk of urothelial bladder cancer in Lynch syndrome is increased, in particular among MSH2 mutation carriers. J Med Genet. 2010;47:464–470. doi: 10.1136/jmg.2010.076992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Geary J., Sasieni P., Houlston R., Izatt L., Eeles R., Payne S.J., et al. Gene-related cancer spectrum in families with hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) Fam Cancer. 2008;7:163–172. doi: 10.1007/s10689-007-9164-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Raymond V.M., Mukherjee B., Wang F., Huang S.C., Stoffel E.M., Kastrinos F., et al. Elevated risk of prostate cancer among men with Lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1713–1718. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.1238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Haraldsdottir S., Hampei H., Wei L. Prostate cancer incidence in males with Lynch syndrome. Genet Med. 2014;16:553–557. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Win A.K., Young J.P., Lindor N.M., Tucker K.M., Ahnen D.J., Young G.P., et al. Colorectal and other cancer risks for carriers and noncarriers from families with a DNA mismatch repair gene mutation: a prospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:958–964. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.5590. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Aarnio M., Sankila R., Pukkala E. Cancer risk in mutation carriers of DNA-mismatch-repair genes. Int J Cancer. 1999;81:214–218. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19990412)81:2<214::aid-ijc8>3.0.co;2-l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Ryan S., Jenkins M.A., Win A.K. Risk of prostate cancer in Lynch syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23:437–449. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Lim A., Rao P., Matin S.F. Lynch syndrome and urologic malignancies: a contemporary review. Curr Opin Urol. 2019:357–363. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000639. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Cárcano F.M., Lengert A.H., Vidal D.O., Scapulatempo Neto C., Queiroz L., Marques H., et al. Absence of microsatellite instability and BRAF (V600E) mutation in testicular germ cell tumors. Andrology. 2016;4:866–872. doi: 10.1111/andr.12200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Mayer F., Wermann H., Albers P., Stoop H., Gillis A.J.M., Hartmann J.T., et al. Histopathological and molecular features of late relapses in non-seminomas. BJU Int. 2011;107:936–943. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09631.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Vasen H.F.A., Mecklin J.P., Meera Khan P., Lynch H.T. The International Collaborative Group on Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer (ICG-HNPCC) Dis Colon Rectum. 1991;34 doi: 10.1007/BF02053699. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]