Iris D Nagtegaal

Microsatellite instability in noncolorectal and nonendometrial malignancies in patients with Lynch syndrome

Abstract Background Individuals with Lynch syndrome are at increased hereditary risk of colorectal and endometrial carcinomas with microsatellite instability (MSI-H) and mismatch repair-deficiency (dMMR), which make these tumors vulnerable to therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Our aim is to assess how often other tumor types in these individuals share these characteristics. Methods We retrieved the full tumor history of a historical clinic-based cohort of 1745 individuals with Lynch syndrome and calculated the standardized incidence ratio for all tumor types. MSI status, somatic second hit alterations, and immunohistochemistry-based MMR status were analyzed in 236 noncolorectal and nonendometrial malignant tumors. Results In individuals with Lynch syndrome MSI-H/dMMR occurred both in Lynch-spectrum and in non–Lynch-spectrum malignancies (85% vs 37%, P < .01). MSI-H/dMMR malignancies were found in nearly all non–Lynch-spectrum tumor types. A high percentage (33%) of breast carcinomas with medullary features was observed, and most of them were MSI-H/dMMR. Breast carcinoma with medullary features were shown to be associated with Lynch syndrome (standardized incidence ratio = 38.8, 95% confidence interval = 16.7 to 76.5). Conclusions In individuals with Lynch syndrome, MSI-H/dMMR occurs in more than one-half of the malignancies other than colorectal and endometrial carcinomas, including tumor types without increased incidence. The Lynch-spectrum tumors should be expanded to breast carcinomas with medullary features. All malignancies in patients with Lynch syndrome, independent of subtype, should be tested for MSI-H/dMMR in case therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors is considered. Moreover, Lynch syndrome should be considered an underlying cause of all MSI-H/dMMR malignancies other than colorectal and endometrial carcinomas.

Mismatch repair deficiency: how reliable is the two‐antibody approach? A national real‐life study

AimsTraditionally, mismatch repair (MMR) status is determined by a panel of four antibodies (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, MSH6). If all proteins are retained, cases are MMR proficient (pMMR), while loss of one or more proteins is indicative of MMR deficiency (dMMR). This approach has been challenged in favour of a two‐antibody approach, using PMS2 and MSH6 as a first screening. Their retainment is deemed sufficient to declare cases pMMR. In this study we aim to verify the validity of the two‐antibody approach.Methods and ResultsWe performed a nationwide study in colorectal cancer (CRC) and endometrial cancer (EC) diagnosed between 2016 and 2023, including 47,657 patients to evaluate the two‐antibody approach. In 0.17% and 0.4% of cases of CRC and EC, respectively, dMMR cases would be missed with the two‐antibody approach. Subgroup analyses pointed towards slightly increased miss rates in younger patients (under the age of 50 years) in both groups and identified special subtypes (signet ring cell carcinoma, medullary carcinoma, and mucinous carcinoma in CRC and clear cell carcinoma in EC) with increased miss rates. For these specific subgroups, a low threshold should be used for further testing. In case of ambiguous or heterogeneous staining patterns, four antibodies should be used.ConclusionIn general, the application of a two‐antibody MMR testing strategy does not lead to considerable failure of dMMR identification and saves costs.