PurposeSome 10% of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and 80% of attenuated polyposis (AFAP) cases remain molecularly unexplained. We scrutinized such cases by exome-wide and targeted methods to search for novel susceptibility genes.MethodsExome sequencing was conducted on 40 unexplained (mainly sporadic) cases with FAP or AFAP from Finland. The DNA mismatch repair (MMR) gene MLH3 (MutL Homolog 3) was pinpointed and prompted a subsequent screen of ~1000 Swedish patients referred to clinical panel sequencing for colon tumor susceptibility.ResultsThree homozygous carriers of a truncating variant in MLH3, c.3563C>G, p.Ser1188Ter, were identified among the index cases from the Finnish series. An additional biallelic carrier of the same variant was present in the Swedish series. All four patients shared a 0.8-Mb core haplotype around MLH3, suggesting a founder variant. Colorectal polyps from variant carriers showed no instability at mono-, di-, tri-, or tetranucleotide repeats, in agreement with previous findings of a minor role of MLH3 in MMR. Multiple loci were affected by loss of heterozygosity, suggesting chromosomal instability.ConclusionOur results show that a biallelic nonsense variant of MLH3 underlies a novel syndrome with susceptibility to classical or attenuated adenomatous polyposis and possibly extracolonic tumors, including breast cancer.

Genomic instability and epigenetic aberrations are important classifiers of human tumors, yet, their interrelations are poorly understood. We used Lynch syndrome (LS) to address such relationships. Forty-five tumors (11 colorectal adenomas, 18 colorectal carcinomas, and 16 ovarian carcinomas) were profiled for CpG Island Methylator Phenotype (CIMP) and somatic mutations. All tumors showed high-degree microsatellite instability. Panel sequencing of 578 cancer-relevant genes revealed the average number of 1433, 1124, and 657 non-synonymous somatic mutations per colorectal adenoma, colorectal carcinoma, and ovarian carcinoma, respectively. Genes harboring mutations with allele frequency 25 % or higher in at least 31 % of tumors were regarded to be possible drivers. Among 72 and 10 such genes identified in colorectal and ovarian tumors, respectively, the most frequently mutated genes BRD4 and MLL2 (62 % of colorectal tumors) and ARID1A (50 % of ovarian carcinomas) are involved in epigenetic regulation. The total number of somatic mutations or mutant genes per tumor were significantly associated with CIMP. Our results suggest that even in an inherited disease, tumor type-specific epigenetic changes are significant and may result from regulatory changes (CIMP) or structural events (mutations of epigenetic regulatory genes). The findings are clinically relevant since many of the affected pathways can be therapeutically targeted.

No abstract

Hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes attributable to high penetrance mutations represent 9–26% of young-onset colorectal cancer cases. The clinical significance of many of these mutations is understood well enough to be used in diagnostics and as an aid in patient care. However, despite the advances made in the field, a significant proportion of familial and early-onset cases remains molecularly uncharacterized and extensive work is still needed to fully understand the genetic nature of colorectal cancer susceptibility. With the emergence of next generation sequencing and associated methods, several predisposition loci have been unravelled but validation is incomplete. Individuals with cancer predisposing mutations are currently enrolled in life-long surveillance, but with the development of new treatments, such as cancer vaccinations, this might change in the not so distant future for at least some individuals. For individuals without a known cause for their disease susceptibility, prevention and therapy options are less precise. Herein, we review the progress achieved in the last three decades with a focus on how colorectal cancer predisposition genes were discovered. Furthermore, we discuss the clinical implications of these discoveries and anticipate what to expect in the next decade.

Ulcerative colitis increases colorectal cancer risk by mechanisms that remain incompletely understood. We approached this question by determining the genetic and epigenetic profiles of colitis-associated colorectal carcinomas (CA-CRC). The findings were compared to Lynch syndrome (LS), a different form of cancer predisposition that shares the importance of immunological factors in tumorigenesis. CA-CRCs (n = 27) were investigated for microsatellite instability, CpG island methylator phenotype and somatic mutations of 999 cancer-relevant genes ("Pan-cancer" panel). A subpanel of "Pan-cancer" design (578 genes) was used for LS colorectal tumors (n = 28). Mutational loads and signatures stratified CA-CRCs into three subgroups: hypermutated microsatellite-unstable (Group 1, n = 1), hypermutated microsatellite-stable (Group 2, n = 9) and nonhypermutated microsatellite-stable (Group 3, n = 17). The Group 1 tumor was the only one with MLH1 promoter hypermethylation and exhibited the mismatch repair deficiency-associated Signatures 21 and 15. Signatures 30 and 32 characterized Group 2, whereas no prominent single signature existed in Group 3. TP53, the most common mutational target in CA-CRC (16/27, 59%), was similarly affected in Groups 2 and 3, but DNA repair genes and Wnt signaling genes were mutated significantly more often in Group 2. In LS tumors, the degree of hypermutability exceeded that of the hypermutated CA-CRC Groups 1 and 2, and somatic mutational profiles and signatures were different. In conclusion, Groups 1 (4%) and 3 (63%) comply with published studies, whereas Group 2 (33%) is novel. The existence of molecularly distinct subgroups within CA-CRC may guide clinical management, such as therapy options.

Introduction: Up to one third of colorectal cancers show familial clustering and 5% are hereditary single-gene disorders. Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer comprises DNA mismatch repairdeficient and -proficient subsets, represented by Lynch syndrome (LS) and familial colorectal cancer type X (FCCTX), respectively. Accurate knowledge of molecular etiology and genotype-phenotype correlations are critical for tailored cancer prevention and treatment. Areas covered: The authors highlight advances in the molecular dissection of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer, based on recent literature retrieved from PubMed. Future possibilities for novel gene discoveries are discussed. Expert commentary: LS is molecularly well established, but new information is accumulating of the associated clinical and tumor phenotypes. FCCTX remains poorly defined, but several promising candidate genes have been discovered and share some preferential biological pathways. Multi-level characterization of specimens from large patient cohorts representing multiple populations, combined with proper bioinformatic and functional analyses, will be necessary to resolve the outstanding questions.

Inherited DNA mismatch repair (MMR) defects cause predisposition to colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, and other cancers occurring in Lynch syndrome (LS). It is unsettled whether breast carcinoma belongs to the LS tumor spectrum. We approached this question through somatic mutational analysis of breast carcinomas from LS families, using established LS-spectrum tumors for comparison. Somatic mutational profiles of 578 cancer-relevant genes were determined for LS-breast cancer (LS-BC, n = 20), non-carrier breast cancer (NC-BC, n = 10), LS-ovarian cancer (LS-OC, n = 16), and LS-colorectal cancer (LS-CRC, n = 18) from the National LS Registry of Finland. Microsatellite and MMR protein analysis stratified LS-BCs into MMR-deficient (dMMR, n = 11) and MMR-proficient (pMMR, n = 9) subgroups. All NC-BCs were pMMR and all LS-OCs and LS-CRCs dMMR. All but one dMMR LS-BCs were hypermutated (> 10 non-synonymous mutations/Mb; average 174/ Mb per tumor) and the frequency of MMR-deficiency-associated signatures 6, 20, and 26 was comparable to that in LS-OC and LS-CRC. LS-BCs that were pMMR resembled NC-BCs with respect to somatic mutational loads (4/9, 44%, hypermutated with average mutation count 33/Mb vs. 3/10, 30%, hypermutated with average 88 mutations/Mb), whereas mutational signatures shared features of dMMR LS-BC, LS-OC, and LS-CRC. Epigenetic regulatory genes were significantly enriched as mutational targets in LS-BC, LS-OC, and LS-CRC. Many top mutant genes of our LS-BCs have previously been identified as drivers of unselected breast carcinomas. In conclusion, somatic mutational signatures suggest that conventional MMR status of tumor tissues is likely to underestimate the significance of the predisposing MMR defects as contributors to breast tumorigenesis in LS.

Some 10–50% of Lynch-suspected cases with abnormal immunohistochemical (IHC) staining remain without any identifiable germline mutation of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes. MMR proteins form heterodimeric complexes, giving rise to distinct IHC patterns when mutant. Potential reasons for not finding a germline mutation include involvement of an MMR gene not predicted by the IHC pattern, epigenetic mechanism of predisposition, primary mutation in another DNA repair or replication-associated gene, and double somatic MMR gene mutations. We addressed these possibilities by germline and tumor studies in 60 Lynch-suspected cases ascertained through diagnostics (n = 55) or research (n = 5). All cases had abnormal MMR protein staining in tumors but no point mutation or large rearrangement of the suspected MMR genes in the germline. In diagnostic practice, MSH2/MSH6 (MutS Homolog 2/MutS Homolog 6) deficiency prompts MSH2 mutation screening; in our study, 3/11 index individuals (27%) with this IHC pattern revealed pathogenic germline mutations in MSH6. Individuals with isolated absence of MSH6 are routinely screened for MSH6 mutations alone; we found a predisposing mutation in MSH2 in 1/7 such cases (14%). Somatic deletion of the MSH2-MSH6 region, joint loss of MSH6 and MSH3 (MutS Homolog 3) proteins, and hindered MSH2/MSH6 dimerization offered explanations to misleading IHC patterns. Constitutional epimutation hypothesis was pursued in the MSH2 and/or MSH6-deficient cases plus 38 cases with MLH1 (MutL Homolog 1)-deficient tumors; a primary MLH1 epimutation was identified in one case with an MLH1-deficient tumor. We conclude that both MSH2 and MSH6 should be screened in MSH2/6- and MSH6-deficient cases. In MLH1-deficient cases, constitutional epimutations of MLH1 warrant consideration.