Performance of PREMM(1,2,6), MMRpredict, and MMRpro in Detecting Lynch Syndrome Among Endometrial Cancer Cases

Overview

Journal Genet Med

Publisher Elsevier

Specialty Genetics

Date 2012 Mar 10

PMID 22402756

Citations 21

Authors

Rowena C Mercado

Heather Hampel

Fay Kastrinos

Ewout Steyerberg

Judith Balmana

Elena Stoffel

David E Cohn

Floor J Backes

John L Hopper

Mark A Jenkins

Noralane M Lindor

Graham Casey

Robert Haile

Subha Madhavan

Albert de la Chapelle

Sapna Syngal

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: Lynch syndrome accounts for 2-5% of endometrial cancer cases. Lynch syndrome prediction models have not been evaluated among endometrial cancer cases.

Methods: Area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity of PREMM(1,2,6), MMRpredict, and MMRpro scores were assessed among 563 population-based and 129 clinic-based endometrial cancer cases.

Results: A total of 14 (3%) population-based and 80 (62%) clinic-based subjects had pathogenic mutations. PREMM(1,2,6), MMRpredict, and MMRpro were able to distinguish mutation carriers from noncarriers (AUC of 0.77, 0.76, and 0.77, respectively), among population-based cases. All three models had lower discrimination for the clinic-based cohort, with AUCs of 0.67, 0.64, and 0.54, respectively. Using a 5% cutoff, sensitivity and specificity were as follows: PREMM(1,2,6), 93% and 5% among population-based cases and 99% and 2% among clinic-based cases; MMRpredict, 71% and 64% for the population-based cohort and 91% and 0% for the clinic-based cohort; and MMRpro, 57% and 85% among population-based cases and 95% and 10% among clinic-based cases.

Conclusion: Currently available prediction models have limited clinical utility in determining which patients with endometrial cancer should undergo genetic testing for Lynch syndrome. Immunohistochemical analysis and microsatellite instability testing may be the best currently available tools to screen for Lynch syndrome in endometrial cancer patients.

Citing Articles

A validation of models for prediction of pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes.

Shyr C, Blackford A, Huang T, Ke J, Ouardaoui N, Trippa L Genet Med. 2022; 24(10):2155-2166.

PMID: 35997715 PMC: 10312204. DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.07.004.

Testing strategies for Lynch syndrome in people with endometrial cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.

Stinton C, Jordan M, Fraser H, Auguste P, Court R, Al-Khudairy L Health Technol Assess. 2021; 25(42):1-216.

PMID: 34169821 PMC: 8273681. DOI: 10.3310/hta25420.

Economic Burden of Depression and Associated Resource Use in Manitoba, Canada.

Tanner J, Hensel J, Davies P, Brown L, Dechairo B, Mulsant B Can J Psychiatry. 2019; 65(5):338-346.

PMID: 31835904 PMC: 7265616. DOI: 10.1177/0706743719895342.

Effective Identification of Lynch Syndrome in Gastroenterology Practice.

Muller C, Matthews L, Kupfer S, Weiss J Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2019; 17(4):666-680.

PMID: 31677041 PMC: 6986345. DOI: 10.1007/s11938-019-00261-2.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of reflex testing for Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer in the UK setting.

Snowsill T, Ryan N, Crosbie E, Frayling I, Evans D, Hyde C PLoS One. 2019; 14(8):e0221419.

PMID: 31469860 PMC: 6716649. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221419.

References

Masuda K, Banno K, Yanokura M, Kobayashi Y, Kisu I, Ueki A . Carcinoma of the Lower Uterine Segment (LUS): Clinicopathological Characteristics and Association with Lynch Syndrome. Curr Genomics. 2011; 12(1):25-9. PMC: 3129040. DOI: 10.2174/138920211794520169. View

Kwon J, Scott J, Gilks C, Daniels M, Sun C, Lu K . Testing women with endometrial cancer to detect Lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29(16):2247-52. PMC: 4874206. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.9979. View

Lu K, Schorge J, Rodabaugh K, Daniels M, Sun C, Soliman P . Prospective determination of prevalence of lynch syndrome in young women with endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25(33):5158-64. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.10.8597. View

Ramsoekh D, van Leerdam M, Wagner A, Kuipers E, Steyerberg E . Mutation prediction models in Lynch syndrome: evaluation in a clinical genetic setting. J Med Genet. 2009; 46(11):745-51. DOI: 10.1136/jmg.2009.066589. View

Douglas F, ODair L, Robinson M, Evans D, Lynch S . The accuracy of diagnoses as reported in families with cancer: a retrospective study. J Med Genet. 1999; 36(4):309-12. PMC: 1734350. View

Westin S, Lacour R, Urbauer D, Luthra R, Bodurka D, Lu K . Carcinoma of the lower uterine segment: a newly described association with Lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26(36):5965-71. PMC: 2645115. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.6296. View

Hampel H, Frankel W, Panescu J, Lockman J, Sotamaa K, Fix D . Screening for Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) among endometrial cancer patients. Cancer Res. 2006; 66(15):7810-7. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-1114. View

Walsh M, Cummings M, Buchanan D, Dambacher W, Arnold S, McKeone D . Molecular, pathologic, and clinical features of early-onset endometrial cancer: identifying presumptive Lynch syndrome patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 14(6):1692-700. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1849. View

Lindor N, Burgart L, Leontovich O, Goldberg R, Cunningham J, Sargent D . Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing in phenotyping colorectal tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20(4):1043-8. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2002.20.4.1043. View

10.

Monzon J, Cremin C, Armstrong L, Nuk J, Young S, Horsman D . Validation of predictive models for germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes in colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer. 2009; 126(4):930-9. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.24808. View

11.

Chen S, Wang W, Lee S, Nafa K, Lee J, Romans K . Prediction of germline mutations and cancer risk in the Lynch syndrome. JAMA. 2006; 296(12):1479-87. PMC: 2538673. DOI: 10.1001/jama.296.12.1479. View

12.

Balaguer F, Balmana J, Castellvi-Bel S, Steyerberg E, Andreu M, Llor X . Validation and extension of the PREMM1,2 model in a population-based cohort of colorectal cancer patients. Gastroenterology. 2007; 134(1):39-46. PMC: 2542581. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.10.042. View

13.

Green R, Parfrey P, Woods M, Younghusband H . Prediction of Lynch syndrome in consecutive patients with colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101(5):331-40. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djn499. View

14.

Resnick K, Hampel H, Fishel R, Cohn D . Current and emerging trends in Lynch syndrome identification in women with endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2009; 114(1):128-34. PMC: 2841434. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.03.003. View

15.

Backes F, Hampel H, Backes K, Vaccarello L, Lewandowski G, Bell J . Are prediction models for Lynch syndrome valid for probands with endometrial cancer?. Fam Cancer. 2009; 8(4):483-7. DOI: 10.1007/s10689-009-9273-5. View

16.

Balmana J, Stockwell D, Steyerberg E, Stoffel E, Deffenbaugh A, Reid J . Prediction of MLH1 and MSH2 mutations in Lynch syndrome. JAMA. 2006; 296(12):1469-78. DOI: 10.1001/jama.296.12.1469. View

17.

Resnick K, Straughn Jr J, Backes F, Hampel H, Matthews K, Cohn D . Lynch syndrome screening strategies among newly diagnosed endometrial cancer patients. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114(3):530-536. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b11ecc. View

18.

Meyer L, Broaddus R, Lu K . Endometrial cancer and Lynch syndrome: clinical and pathologic considerations. Cancer Control. 2008; 16(1):14-22. PMC: 3693757. DOI: 10.1177/107327480901600103. View

19.

Poynter J, Siegmund K, Weisenberger D, Long T, Thibodeau S, Lindor N . Molecular characterization of MSI-H colorectal cancer by MLHI promoter methylation, immunohistochemistry, and mismatch repair germline mutation screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008; 17(11):3208-15. PMC: 2628332. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0512. View

20.

Shih K, Garg K, Levine D, Kauff N, Abu-Rustum N, Soslow R . Clinicopathologic significance of DNA mismatch repair protein defects and endometrial cancer in women 40years of age and younger. Gynecol Oncol. 2011; 123(1):88-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.06.005. View