Anne Maria Lucia Jansen1, Ajay Goel2. 1. Center for Gastrointestinal Research, Center for Translational Genomics and Oncology, Baylor Scott & White Research Institute and Charles A. Sammons Cancer Center, Dallas, Texas. 2. Center for Gastrointestinal Research, Center for Translational Genomics and Oncology, Baylor Scott & White Research Institute and Charles A. Sammons Cancer Center, Dallas, Texas; Department of Molecular Diagnostics and Experimental Therapeutics, Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope, Duarte, California. Electronic address: ajgoel@coh.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Somatic mosaicism, in which variants arise post-zygotically and are therefore not present in all cells in the body, may be an underestimated cause of colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyposis syndromes. We performed a systematic review to provide a comprehensive overview of somatic mosaicism in patients with CRC and polyposis syndromes. METHODS: We searched PubMed through March 2018 to identify reports of mosaicism in patients with CRC or polyposis syndromes. We divided the final set of studies into 3 subgroups describing APC mosaicism, mosaicism in other CRC susceptibility genes, and epigenetic mosaicism. RESULTS: Of the 232 articles identified in our systematic search, 46 met the criteria for further analysis. Of these, 35 studies described mosaic variants or epimutations in patients with CRC or polyposis syndromes. Nineteen studies described APC mosaicism, comprising a total of 57 patients. Six described mosaicism in genes associated with familial CRC syndromes, such as Lynch and Cowden syndromes. Ten studies described epigenetic mosaicism, sometimes resulting from a germline variant (such as deletion of EPCAM). CONCLUSIONS: We found that somatic mosaicism is underdiagnosed but critical for determining the clinical management of patients with de novo polyposis who possibly carry mosaic APC variants, and present a decision tree for the clinical management of these patients. Mosaicism in genes associated with susceptibility to CRC contributes to development of other familial CRC syndromes. Heritable epigenetic mosaicism is likely underestimated and could have a dominant pattern of inheritance. However, the inheritance of primary mosaic epimutations, without an underlying genetic cause, is complex and not fully understood.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Somatic mosaicism, in which variants arise post-zygotically and are therefore not present in all cells in the body, may be an underestimated cause of colorectal cancer (CRC) and polyposis syndromes. We performed a systematic review to provide a comprehensive overview of somatic mosaicism in patients with CRC and polyposis syndromes. METHODS: We searched PubMed through March 2018 to identify reports of mosaicism in patients with CRC or polyposis syndromes. We divided the final set of studies into 3 subgroups describing APC mosaicism, mosaicism in other CRC susceptibility genes, and epigenetic mosaicism. RESULTS: Of the 232 articles identified in our systematic search, 46 met the criteria for further analysis. Of these, 35 studies described mosaic variants or epimutations in patients with CRC or polyposis syndromes. Nineteen studies described APC mosaicism, comprising a total of 57 patients. Six described mosaicism in genes associated with familial CRC syndromes, such as Lynch and Cowden syndromes. Ten studies described epigenetic mosaicism, sometimes resulting from a germline variant (such as deletion of EPCAM). CONCLUSIONS: We found that somatic mosaicism is underdiagnosed but critical for determining the clinical management of patients with de novo polyposis who possibly carry mosaic APC variants, and present a decision tree for the clinical management of these patients. Mosaicism in genes associated with susceptibility to CRC contributes to development of other familial CRC syndromes. Heritable epigenetic mosaicism is likely underestimated and could have a dominant pattern of inheritance. However, the inheritance of primary mosaic epimutations, without an underlying genetic cause, is complex and not fully understood.
Authors: Kandelaria Rumilla; Karen V Schowalter; Noralane M Lindor; Brittany C Thomas; Kara A Mensink; Steven Gallinger; Spring Holter; Polly A Newcomb; John D Potter; Mark A Jenkins; John L Hopper; Tiffany I Long; Daniel J Weisenberger; Robert W Haile; Graham Casey; Peter W Laird; Loic Le Marchand; Stephen N Thibodeau Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2010-12-23 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: R J Scott; R Crooks; C J Meldrum; L Thomas; C J A Smith; D Mowat; M McPhillips; A D Spigelman Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: M Nielsen; F J Hes; F M Nagengast; M M Weiss; E M Mathus-Vliegen; H Morreau; M H Breuning; J T Wijnen; C M J Tops; H F A Vasen Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: Stefan Aretz; Dietlinde Stienen; Nicolaus Friedrichs; Susanne Stemmler; Siegfried Uhlhaas; Nils Rahner; Peter Propping; Waltraut Friedl Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Angela L Schwab; Thérèse M F Tuohy; Michelle Condie; Deborah W Neklason; Randall W Burt Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2007-11-18 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Aytekin Akyol; Takao Hinoi; Ying Feng; Guido T Bommer; Thomas M Glaser; Eric R Fearon Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2008-02-10 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Fadwa A Elsayed; Carli M J Tops; Maartje Nielsen; Hans Morreau; Frederik J Hes; Tom van Wezel Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 2.375