Michael J Metcalfe1, Firas G Petros1, Priya Rao2, Maureen E Mork3, Lianchun Xiao4, Russell R Broaddus2, Surena F Matin5. 1. Department of Urology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Pathology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Clinical Cancer Genetics Program, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Biostatistics, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 5. Department of Urology, University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: surmatin@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients with Lynch syndrome are at risk for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. We sought to identify the incidence and most reliable means of point of care screening for Lynch syndrome in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 115 consecutive patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma without a history of Lynch syndrome were universally screened during followup from January 2013 through July 2016. We evaluated patient and family history using AMS (Amsterdam criteria) I and II, and tumor immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair proteins and microsatellite instability. Patients who were positive for AMS I/II, microsatellite instability or immunohistochemistry were classified as potentially having Lynch syndrome and referred for clinical genetic analysis and counseling. Patients with known Lynch syndrome served as positive controls. RESULTS: Of the 115 patients 16 (13.9%) screened positive for potential Lynch syndrome. Of these patients 7.0% met AMS II criteria, 11.3% had loss of at least 1 mismatch repair protein and 6.0% had high microsatellite instability. All 16 patients were referred for germline testing, 9 completed genetic analysis and counseling, and 6 were confirmed to have Lynch syndrome. All 7 patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma who had a known history of Lynch syndrome were positive for AMS II criteria and at least a single mismatch repair protein loss while 5 of 6 had high microsatellite instability. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 13.9% of upper tract urothelial carcinoma cases as potential Lynch syndrome and 5.2% as confirmed Lynch syndrome at the point of care. These findings have important implications for universal screening of upper tract urothelial carcinoma, representing one of the highest rates of undiagnosed genetic disease in a urological cancer.
PURPOSE:Patients with Lynch syndrome are at risk for upper tract urothelial carcinoma. We sought to identify the incidence and most reliable means of point of care screening for Lynch syndrome in patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 115 consecutive patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma without a history of Lynch syndrome were universally screened during followup from January 2013 through July 2016. We evaluated patient and family history using AMS (Amsterdam criteria) I and II, and tumor immunohistochemistry for mismatch repair proteins and microsatellite instability. Patients who were positive for AMS I/II, microsatellite instability or immunohistochemistry were classified as potentially having Lynch syndrome and referred for clinical genetic analysis and counseling. Patients with known Lynch syndrome served as positive controls. RESULTS: Of the 115 patients 16 (13.9%) screened positive for potential Lynch syndrome. Of these patients 7.0% met AMS II criteria, 11.3% had loss of at least 1 mismatch repair protein and 6.0% had high microsatellite instability. All 16 patients were referred for germline testing, 9 completed genetic analysis and counseling, and 6 were confirmed to have Lynch syndrome. All 7 patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma who had a known history of Lynch syndrome were positive for AMS II criteria and at least a single mismatch repair protein loss while 5 of 6 had high microsatellite instability. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 13.9% of upper tract urothelial carcinoma cases as potential Lynch syndrome and 5.2% as confirmed Lynch syndrome at the point of care. These findings have important implications for universal screening of upper tract urothelial carcinoma, representing one of the highest rates of undiagnosed genetic disease in a urological cancer.
Authors: Mark Warren; Michael Kolinsky; Christina M Canil; Piotr Czaykowski; Srikala S Sridhar; Peter C Black; Christopher M Booth; Wassim Kassouf; Libni Eapen; Som D Mukherjee; Normand Blais; Bernhard J Eigl; Eric Winquist; Naveen S Basappa; Scott A North Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Victor M Schuettfort; Benjamin Pradere; Fahad Quhal; Hadi Mostafaei; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Keiichiro Mori; Reza Sari Motlagh; Michael Rink; David D'Andrea; Mohammad Abufaraj; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2020-10-09
Authors: Jeanna M McCuaig; Susan Randall Armel; Melanie Care; Alexandra Volenik; Raymond H Kim; Kelly A Metcalfe Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2018-11-13 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Matthew D Galsky; Arjun V Balar; Peter C Black; Matthew T Campbell; Gail S Dykstra; Petros Grivas; Shilpa Gupta; Christoper J Hoimes; Lidia P Lopez; Joshua J Meeks; Elizabeth R Plimack; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Neal Shore; Gary D Steinberg; Ashish M Kamat Journal: J Immunother Cancer Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 13.751