INTRODUCTION: Lynch syndrome families have a substantial risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). The recommended surveillance protocol includes colonoscopy every 2 years from age 20-25 years. It is yet unknown whether annual screening of patients aged 40-60 years is more effective than bi-annual screening, whether patients who had an adenoma removed should be re-examined after a year and whether surveillance of second-degree relatives is indicated. The aim of this study was to address these issues. METHODS: All carriers of a mismatch repair gene mutation who participated in the surveillance program were selected from the Dutch Lynch syndrome registry. The results of colonoscopy were prospectively collected. RESULTS: A total of 666 mutation carriers were identified in 110 families. Fourty-one CRCs were detected during endoscopic follow-up, of which 34 (83%) were diagnosed between age 40 and 60 years. In five of 34 patients, CRC was diagnosed within 1 year after colonoscopy, eight cancers were diagnosed between 1 and 2 years and the remaining tumors more than 2 years after colonoscopy. All eight CRCs detected between 1 and 2 years were at local stage. At least one adenoma was diagnosed at 141 examinations. The risk of developing CRC during follow-up in carriers with an adenoma was similar as in carriers without an adenoma at the previous colonoscopy. 280 parent-child couples with at least one Lynch syndrome-related carcinoma were identified in 110 families. In only 19 (6.8%) of these couples, CRC developed earlier in the child than an Lynch syndrome-associated cancer in the parent. CONCLUSION: The current surveillance protocol, i.e., bi-annual colonoscopy in first-degree relatives independent of age and endoscopic findings, appears to be appropriate.
INTRODUCTION:Lynch syndrome families have a substantial risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). The recommended surveillance protocol includes colonoscopy every 2 years from age 20-25 years. It is yet unknown whether annual screening of patients aged 40-60 years is more effective than bi-annual screening, whether patients who had an adenoma removed should be re-examined after a year and whether surveillance of second-degree relatives is indicated. The aim of this study was to address these issues. METHODS: All carriers of a mismatch repair gene mutation who participated in the surveillance program were selected from the Dutch Lynch syndrome registry. The results of colonoscopy were prospectively collected. RESULTS: A total of 666 mutation carriers were identified in 110 families. Fourty-one CRCs were detected during endoscopic follow-up, of which 34 (83%) were diagnosed between age 40 and 60 years. In five of 34 patients, CRC was diagnosed within 1 year after colonoscopy, eight cancers were diagnosed between 1 and 2 years and the remaining tumors more than 2 years after colonoscopy. All eight CRCs detected between 1 and 2 years were at local stage. At least one adenoma was diagnosed at 141 examinations. The risk of developing CRC during follow-up in carriers with an adenoma was similar as in carriers without an adenoma at the previous colonoscopy. 280 parent-child couples with at least one Lynch syndrome-related carcinoma were identified in 110 families. In only 19 (6.8%) of these couples, CRC developed earlier in the child than an Lynch syndrome-associated cancer in the parent. CONCLUSION: The current surveillance protocol, i.e., bi-annual colonoscopy in first-degree relatives independent of age and endoscopic findings, appears to be appropriate.
Authors: Wouter H de Vos tot Nederveen Cappel; Fokko M Nagengast; Gerrit Griffioen; Fred H Menko; Babs G Taal; Jan H Kleibeuker; Hans F Vasen Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: L A Aaltonen; P Peltomäki; F S Leach; P Sistonen; L Pylkkänen; J P Mecklin; H Järvinen; S M Powell; J Jen; S R Hamilton Journal: Science Date: 1993-05-07 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: H F Vasen; G J Offerhaus; F C den Hartog Jager; F H Menko; F M Nagengast; G Griffioen; R B van Hogezand; A P Heintz Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 1990-07-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: F S Leach; N C Nicolaides; N Papadopoulos; B Liu; J Jen; R Parsons; P Peltomäki; P Sistonen; L A Aaltonen; M Nyström-Lahti Journal: Cell Date: 1993-12-17 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Andrea E De Jong; Hans Morreau; Marjo Van Puijenbroek; Paul H c Eilers; Juul Wijnen; Fokko M Nagengast; Gerrit Griffioen; Annemieke Cats; Fred H Menko; Jan H Kleibeuker; Hans F A Vasen Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: H F Vasen; J T Wijnen; F H Menko; J H Kleibeuker; B G Taal; G Griffioen; F M Nagengast; E H Meijers-Heijboer; L Bertario; L Varesco; M L Bisgaard; J Mohr; R Fodde; P M Khan Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: J F Haanstra; H F A Vasen; S Sanduleanu; E J van der Wouden; J J Koornstra; J H Kleibeuker; W H de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2013-07-16 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Kevin J Monahan; Nicola Bradshaw; Sunil Dolwani; Bianca Desouza; Malcolm G Dunlop; James E East; Mohammad Ilyas; Asha Kaur; Fiona Lalloo; Andrew Latchford; Matthew D Rutter; Ian Tomlinson; Huw J W Thomas; James Hill Journal: Gut Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: H F A Vasen; G Möslein; A Alonso; I Bernstein; L Bertario; I Blanco; J Burn; G Capella; C Engel; I Frayling; W Friedl; F J Hes; S Hodgson; J-P Mecklin; P Møller; F Nagengast; Y Parc; L Renkonen-Sinisalo; J R Sampson; A Stormorken; J Wijnen Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2007-02-27 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: A K Win; J G Dowty; D R English; P T Campbell; J P Young; I Winship; F A Macrae; L Lipton; S Parry; G P Young; D D Buchanan; M E Martínez; E T Jacobs; D J Ahnen; R W Haile; G Casey; J A Baron; N M Lindor; S N Thibodeau; P A Newcomb; J D Potter; L Le Marchand; S Gallinger; J L Hopper; M A Jenkins Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 7.640