INTRODUCTION: Lynch syndrome as the most common hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome and the most common cause of hereditary endometrial cancer is characterized by an autosomal dominant inheritance with a penetrance of 85-90%. The molecular genetic underlying mechanism is a mutation in one of the mismatch repair genes. METHODS: In order to identify patients with Lynch syndrome, a nuclear family history should be ascertained and matched with the Amsterdam criteria. A different approach for identification is the adherence to Bethesda criteria and subsequent testing for microsatellite instability. In patients with unstable tumors as an indicator for mismatch repair deficiency, genetic counseling and mutation analysis are warranted. For families fulfilling the Amsterdam criteria, intensified screening is recommended, even if a pathogenic mutation is not identified. RESULTS: Individuals from families with a proven pathogenic mutation that are tested negative are at normal population risk for cancers and may be dismissed from intensified surveillance. Prophylactic surgery in high-risk individuals without neoplasia is not generally recommended. At the time of a colon primary, however, extended surgery should be discussed in the light of a high rate of metachronous cancers. The worries of impairing functional results have now been evaluated in the light of quality of life in a large international cohort. Interestingly, extended (prophylactic) surgery does not lead to inferior quality of life with equal perioperative risks. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, taking the risk reduction into account, extended surgery at the time of the first colon primary should at least be discussed, if not recommended. Also, prophylactic hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy at the time of a colorectal primary should be recommended if family planning has been completed.
INTRODUCTION:Lynch syndrome as the most common hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome and the most common cause of hereditary endometrial cancer is characterized by an autosomal dominant inheritance with a penetrance of 85-90%. The molecular genetic underlying mechanism is a mutation in one of the mismatch repair genes. METHODS: In order to identify patients with Lynch syndrome, a nuclear family history should be ascertained and matched with the Amsterdam criteria. A different approach for identification is the adherence to Bethesda criteria and subsequent testing for microsatellite instability. In patients with unstable tumors as an indicator for mismatch repair deficiency, genetic counseling and mutation analysis are warranted. For families fulfilling the Amsterdam criteria, intensified screening is recommended, even if a pathogenic mutation is not identified. RESULTS: Individuals from families with a proven pathogenic mutation that are tested negative are at normal population risk for cancers and may be dismissed from intensified surveillance. Prophylactic surgery in high-risk individuals without neoplasia is not generally recommended. At the time of a colon primary, however, extended surgery should be discussed in the light of a high rate of metachronous cancers. The worries of impairing functional results have now been evaluated in the light of quality of life in a large international cohort. Interestingly, extended (prophylactic) surgery does not lead to inferior quality of life with equal perioperative risks. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, taking the risk reduction into account, extended surgery at the time of the first colon primary should at least be discussed, if not recommended. Also, prophylactic hysterectomy and bilateral oophorectomy at the time of a colorectal primary should be recommended if family planning has been completed.
Authors: Shuji Ogino; Kaori Shima; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Nadine J McCleary; Kimmie Ng; Donna Hollis; Leonard B Saltz; Robert J Mayer; Paul Schaefer; Renaud Whittom; Alexander Hantel; Al B Benson; Donna Spiegelman; Richard M Goldberg; Monica M Bertagnolli; Charles S Fuchs Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Tae Hyuk Kim; Young Joo Park; Jung Ah Lim; Hwa Young Ahn; Eun Kyung Lee; You Jin Lee; Kyung Won Kim; Seo Kyung Hahn; Yeo Kyu Youn; Kwang Hyun Kim; Bo Youn Cho; Do Joon Park Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-08-31 Impact factor: 6.860
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: J M Cunningham; C Y Kim; E R Christensen; D J Tester; Y Parc; L J Burgart; K C Halling; S K McDonnell; D J Schaid; C Walsh Vockley; V Kubly; H Nelson; V V Michels; S N Thibodeau Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2001-08-24 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: S Ogino; M Cantor; T Kawasaki; M Brahmandam; G J Kirkner; D J Weisenberger; M Campan; P W Laird; M Loda; C S Fuchs Journal: Gut Date: 2006-01-11 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: H F Vasen; P Watson; J P Mecklin; J R Jass; J S Green; T Nomizu; H Müller; H T Lynch Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 1994 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: Mark A Jenkins; Shinichi Hayashi; Anne-Marie O'Shea; Lawrence J Burgart; Tom C Smyrk; David Shimizu; Paul M Waring; Andrew R Ruszkiewicz; Aaron F Pollett; Mark Redston; Melissa A Barker; John A Baron; Graham R Casey; James G Dowty; Graham G Giles; Paul Limburg; Polly Newcomb; Joanne P Young; Michael D Walsh; Stephen N Thibodeau; Noralane M Lindor; Loïc Lemarchand; Steven Gallinger; Robert W Haile; John D Potter; John L Hopper; Jeremy R Jass Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2007-04-25 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: A Buckowitz; H-P Knaebel; A Benner; H Bläker; J Gebert; P Kienle; M von Knebel Doeberitz; M Kloor Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2005-05-09 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Daiva Kanopiene; Jolanta Vidugiriene; Konstantinas Povilas Valuckas; Giedre Smailyte; Saule Uleckiene; Jeff Bacher Journal: Open Med (Wars) Date: 2014-11-11