Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Familial Cancer 3/2018

Open Access 01-07-2018 | Original Article

Evaluation of current prediction models for Lynch syndrome: updating the PREMM5 model to identify PMS2 mutation carriers

Authors: A. Goverde, M. C. W. Spaander, D. Nieboer, A. M. W. van den Ouweland, W. N. M. Dinjens, H. J. Dubbink, C. J. Tops, S. W. ten Broeke, M. J. Bruno, R. M. W. Hofstra, E. W. Steyerberg, A. Wagner

Published in: Familial Cancer | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Until recently, no prediction models for Lynch syndrome (LS) had been validated for PMS2 mutation carriers. We aimed to evaluate MMRpredict and PREMM5 in a clinical cohort and for PMS2 mutation carriers specifically. In a retrospective, clinic-based cohort we calculated predictions for LS according to MMRpredict and PREMM5. The area under the operator receiving characteristic curve (AUC) was compared between MMRpredict and PREMM5 for LS patients in general and for different LS genes specifically. Of 734 index patients, 83 (11%) were diagnosed with LS; 23 MLH1, 17 MSH2, 31 MSH6 and 12 PMS2 mutation carriers. Both prediction models performed well for MLH1 and MSH2 (AUC 0.80 and 0.83 for PREMM5 and 0.79 for MMRpredict) and fair for MSH6 mutation carriers (0.69 for PREMM5 and 0.66 for MMRpredict). MMRpredict performed fair for PMS2 mutation carriers (AUC 0.72), while PREMM5 failed to discriminate PMS2 mutation carriers from non-mutation carriers (AUC 0.51). The only statistically significant difference between PMS2 mutation carriers and non-mutation carriers was proximal location of colorectal cancer (77 vs. 28%, p < 0.001). Adding location of colorectal cancer to PREMM5 considerably improved the models performance for PMS2 mutation carriers (AUC 0.77) and overall (AUC 0.81 vs. 0.72). We validated these results in an external cohort of 376 colorectal cancer patients, including 158 LS patients. MMRpredict and PREMM5 cannot adequately identify PMS2 mutation carriers. Adding location of colorectal cancer to PREMM5 may improve the performance of this model, which should be validated in larger cohorts.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Watson P, Lynch HT (1993) Extracolonic cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Cancer 71(3):677–685CrossRefPubMed Watson P, Lynch HT (1993) Extracolonic cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Cancer 71(3):677–685CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference de Jong AE, Hendriks YM, Kleibeuker JH et al (2006) Decrease in mortality in Lynch syndrome families because of surveillance. Gastroenterology 130(3):665–671CrossRefPubMed de Jong AE, Hendriks YM, Kleibeuker JH et al (2006) Decrease in mortality in Lynch syndrome families because of surveillance. Gastroenterology 130(3):665–671CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Jarvinen HJ, Aarnio M, Mustonen H et al (2000) Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 118(5):829–834CrossRefPubMed Jarvinen HJ, Aarnio M, Mustonen H et al (2000) Controlled 15-year trial on screening for colorectal cancer in families with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 118(5):829–834CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Jarvinen HJ, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Aktan-Collan K, Peltomaki P, Aaltonen LA, Mecklin JP (2009) Ten years after mutation testing for Lynch syndrome: cancer incidence and outcome in mutation-positive and mutation-negative family members. J Clin Oncol 27(28):4793–4797CrossRefPubMed Jarvinen HJ, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Aktan-Collan K, Peltomaki P, Aaltonen LA, Mecklin JP (2009) Ten years after mutation testing for Lynch syndrome: cancer incidence and outcome in mutation-positive and mutation-negative family members. J Clin Oncol 27(28):4793–4797CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Akiyama Y, Sato H, Yamada T et al (1997) Germ-line mutation of the hMSH6/GTBP gene in an atypical hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer kindred. Cancer Res 57(18):3920–3923PubMed Akiyama Y, Sato H, Yamada T et al (1997) Germ-line mutation of the hMSH6/GTBP gene in an atypical hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer kindred. Cancer Res 57(18):3920–3923PubMed
7.
go back to reference Bronner CE, Baker SM, Morrison PT et al (1994) Mutation in the DNA mismatch repair gene homologue hMLH1 is associated with hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer. Nature 368(6468):258–261CrossRefPubMed Bronner CE, Baker SM, Morrison PT et al (1994) Mutation in the DNA mismatch repair gene homologue hMLH1 is associated with hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer. Nature 368(6468):258–261CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Fishel R, Lescoe MK, Rao MR et al (1993) The human mutator gene homolog MSH2 and its association with hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Cell 75(5):1027–1038CrossRefPubMed Fishel R, Lescoe MK, Rao MR et al (1993) The human mutator gene homolog MSH2 and its association with hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Cell 75(5):1027–1038CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Nicolaides NC, Papadopoulos N, Liu B et al (1994) Mutations of two PMS homologues in hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Nature 371(6492):75–80CrossRefPubMed Nicolaides NC, Papadopoulos N, Liu B et al (1994) Mutations of two PMS homologues in hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Nature 371(6492):75–80CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Niessen RC, Hofstra RM, Westers H et al (2009) Germline hypermethylation of MLH1 and EPCAM deletions are a frequent cause of Lynch syndrome. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 48(8):737–744CrossRefPubMed Niessen RC, Hofstra RM, Westers H et al (2009) Germline hypermethylation of MLH1 and EPCAM deletions are a frequent cause of Lynch syndrome. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 48(8):737–744CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Aaltonen LA, Salovaara R, Kristo P et al (1998) Incidence of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer and the feasibility of molecular screening for the disease. N Engl J Med 338(21):1481–1487CrossRefPubMed Aaltonen LA, Salovaara R, Kristo P et al (1998) Incidence of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer and the feasibility of molecular screening for the disease. N Engl J Med 338(21):1481–1487CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference van Lier MG, Wagner A, van Leerdam ME et al (2010) A review on the molecular diagnostics of Lynch syndrome: a central role for the pathology laboratory. J Cell Mol Med 14(1–2):181–197CrossRefPubMed van Lier MG, Wagner A, van Leerdam ME et al (2010) A review on the molecular diagnostics of Lynch syndrome: a central role for the pathology laboratory. J Cell Mol Med 14(1–2):181–197CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Cross DS, Rahm AK, Kauffman TL et al (2013) Underutilization of Lynch syndrome screening in a multisite study of patients with colorectal cancer. Genet Med 15(12):933–940CrossRefPubMed Cross DS, Rahm AK, Kauffman TL et al (2013) Underutilization of Lynch syndrome screening in a multisite study of patients with colorectal cancer. Genet Med 15(12):933–940CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Julie C, Tresallet C, Brouquet A et al (2008) Identification in daily practice of patients with Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer): revised Bethesda guidelines-based approach versus molecular screening. Am J Gastroenterol 103(11):2825–2835 (quiz 36)CrossRefPubMed Julie C, Tresallet C, Brouquet A et al (2008) Identification in daily practice of patients with Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer): revised Bethesda guidelines-based approach versus molecular screening. Am J Gastroenterol 103(11):2825–2835 (quiz 36)CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Perez-Carbonell L, Ruiz-Ponte C, Guarinos C et al (2012) Comparison between universal molecular screening for Lynch syndrome and revised Bethesda guidelines in a large population-based cohort of patients with colorectal cancer. Gut 61(6):865–872CrossRefPubMed Perez-Carbonell L, Ruiz-Ponte C, Guarinos C et al (2012) Comparison between universal molecular screening for Lynch syndrome and revised Bethesda guidelines in a large population-based cohort of patients with colorectal cancer. Gut 61(6):865–872CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Van Lier MG, De Wilt JH, Wagemakers JJ et al (2009) Underutilization of microsatellite instability analysis in colorectal cancer patients at high risk for Lynch syndrome. Scand J Gastroenterol 44(5):600–604CrossRefPubMed Van Lier MG, De Wilt JH, Wagemakers JJ et al (2009) Underutilization of microsatellite instability analysis in colorectal cancer patients at high risk for Lynch syndrome. Scand J Gastroenterol 44(5):600–604CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Barnetson RA, Tenesa A, Farrington SM et al (2006) Identification and survival of carriers of mutations in DNA mismatch-repair genes in colon cancer. N Engl J Med 354(26):2751–2763CrossRefPubMed Barnetson RA, Tenesa A, Farrington SM et al (2006) Identification and survival of carriers of mutations in DNA mismatch-repair genes in colon cancer. N Engl J Med 354(26):2751–2763CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Kastrinos F, Uno H, Ukaegbu C et al (2017) Development and Validation of the PREMM5 Model for Comprehensive Risk Assessment of Lynch Syndrome. J Clin Oncol 35(19):2165–2172CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kastrinos F, Uno H, Ukaegbu C et al (2017) Development and Validation of the PREMM5 Model for Comprehensive Risk Assessment of Lynch Syndrome. J Clin Oncol 35(19):2165–2172CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Green RC, Parfrey PS, Woods MO, Younghusband HB (2009) Prediction of Lynch syndrome in consecutive patients with colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(5):331–340CrossRefPubMed Green RC, Parfrey PS, Woods MO, Younghusband HB (2009) Prediction of Lynch syndrome in consecutive patients with colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(5):331–340CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Khan O, Blanco A, Conrad P et al (2011) Performance of Lynch syndrome predictive models in a multi-center US referral population. Am J Gastroenterol 106(10):1822–1827 (quiz 8)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Khan O, Blanco A, Conrad P et al (2011) Performance of Lynch syndrome predictive models in a multi-center US referral population. Am J Gastroenterol 106(10):1822–1827 (quiz 8)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
go back to reference Monzon JG, Cremin C, Armstrong L et al (2010) Validation of predictive models for germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes in colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer 126(4):930–939PubMed Monzon JG, Cremin C, Armstrong L et al (2010) Validation of predictive models for germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes in colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer 126(4):930–939PubMed
24.
go back to reference Pouchet CJ, Wong N, Chong G et al (2009) A comparison of models used to predict MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 mutation carriers. Ann Oncol 20(4):681–688CrossRefPubMed Pouchet CJ, Wong N, Chong G et al (2009) A comparison of models used to predict MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 mutation carriers. Ann Oncol 20(4):681–688CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Ramsoekh D, van Leerdam ME, Wagner A, Kuipers EJ, Steyerberg EW (2009) Mutation prediction models in Lynch syndrome: evaluation in a clinical genetic setting. J Med Genet 46(11):745–751CrossRefPubMed Ramsoekh D, van Leerdam ME, Wagner A, Kuipers EJ, Steyerberg EW (2009) Mutation prediction models in Lynch syndrome: evaluation in a clinical genetic setting. J Med Genet 46(11):745–751CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Tresallet C, Brouquet A, Julie C et al (2012) Evaluation of predictive models in daily practice for the identification of patients with Lynch syndrome. Int J Cancer 130(6):1367–1377CrossRefPubMed Tresallet C, Brouquet A, Julie C et al (2012) Evaluation of predictive models in daily practice for the identification of patients with Lynch syndrome. Int J Cancer 130(6):1367–1377CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Win AK, Macinnis RJ, Dowty JG, Jenkins MA (2013) Criteria and prediction models for mismatch repair gene mutations: a review. J Med Genet 50(12):785–793CrossRefPubMed Win AK, Macinnis RJ, Dowty JG, Jenkins MA (2013) Criteria and prediction models for mismatch repair gene mutations: a review. J Med Genet 50(12):785–793CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Boland CR, Thibodeau SN, Hamilton SR et al (1998) A National Cancer Institute Workshop on Microsatellite Instability for cancer detection and familial predisposition: development of international criteria for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 58(22):5248–5257PubMed Boland CR, Thibodeau SN, Hamilton SR et al (1998) A National Cancer Institute Workshop on Microsatellite Instability for cancer detection and familial predisposition: development of international criteria for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 58(22):5248–5257PubMed
29.
go back to reference Suraweera N, Duval A, Reperant M et al (2002) Evaluation of tumor microsatellite instability using five quasimonomorphic mononucleotide repeats and pentaplex PCR. Gastroenterology 123(6):1804–1811CrossRefPubMed Suraweera N, Duval A, Reperant M et al (2002) Evaluation of tumor microsatellite instability using five quasimonomorphic mononucleotide repeats and pentaplex PCR. Gastroenterology 123(6):1804–1811CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference van der Klift HM, Tops CM, Bik EC et al (2010) Quantification of sequence exchange events between PMS2 and PMS2CL provides a basis for improved mutation scanning of Lynch syndrome patients. Hum Mutat 31(5):578–587PubMed van der Klift HM, Tops CM, Bik EC et al (2010) Quantification of sequence exchange events between PMS2 and PMS2CL provides a basis for improved mutation scanning of Lynch syndrome patients. Hum Mutat 31(5):578–587PubMed
31.
go back to reference Van Hoorde K, Vergouwe Y, Timmerman D, Van Huffel S, Steyerberg EW, Van Calster B (2014) Assessing calibration of multinomial risk prediction models. Stat Med 33(15):2585–2596CrossRefPubMed Van Hoorde K, Vergouwe Y, Timmerman D, Van Huffel S, Steyerberg EW, Van Calster B (2014) Assessing calibration of multinomial risk prediction models. Stat Med 33(15):2585–2596CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference Kastrinos F, Ojha RP, Leenen C et al. (2016) Comparison of prediction models for Lynch syndrome among individuals with colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. doi:10.1093/jnci/djv308 Kastrinos F, Ojha RP, Leenen C et al. (2016) Comparison of prediction models for Lynch syndrome among individuals with colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. doi:10.1093/jnci/djv308
34.
go back to reference Giardiello FM, Allen JI, Axilbund JE et al (2014) Guidelines on genetic evaluation and management of Lynch syndrome: a consensus statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 147(2):502–526CrossRefPubMed Giardiello FM, Allen JI, Axilbund JE et al (2014) Guidelines on genetic evaluation and management of Lynch syndrome: a consensus statement by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 147(2):502–526CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Vasen HF, Blanco I, Aktan-Collan K et al (2013) Revised guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (HNPCC): recommendations by a group of European experts. Gut 62(6):812–823CrossRefPubMed Vasen HF, Blanco I, Aktan-Collan K et al (2013) Revised guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (HNPCC): recommendations by a group of European experts. Gut 62(6):812–823CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Barzi A, Sadeghi S, Kattan MW, Meropol NJ (2015) Comparative effectiveness of screening strategies for Lynch syndrome. J Natl Cancer Inst. doi:10.1093/jnci/djv005 Barzi A, Sadeghi S, Kattan MW, Meropol NJ (2015) Comparative effectiveness of screening strategies for Lynch syndrome. J Natl Cancer Inst. doi:10.1093/jnci/djv005
37.
go back to reference Ladabaum U, Wang G, Terdiman J et al (2011) Strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 155(2):69–79CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ladabaum U, Wang G, Terdiman J et al (2011) Strategies to identify the Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 155(2):69–79CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
go back to reference Palomaki GE, McClain MR, Melillo S, Hampel HL, Thibodeau SN (2009) EGAPP supplementary evidence review: DNA testing strategies aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome. Genet Med 11(1):42–65CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Palomaki GE, McClain MR, Melillo S, Hampel HL, Thibodeau SN (2009) EGAPP supplementary evidence review: DNA testing strategies aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome. Genet Med 11(1):42–65CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
go back to reference Vergouwe Y, Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JD (2005) Substantial effective sample sizes were required for external validation studies of predictive logistic regression models. J Clin Epidemiol 58(5):475–483CrossRefPubMed Vergouwe Y, Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JD (2005) Substantial effective sample sizes were required for external validation studies of predictive logistic regression models. J Clin Epidemiol 58(5):475–483CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of current prediction models for Lynch syndrome: updating the PREMM5 model to identify PMS2 mutation carriers
Authors
A. Goverde
M. C. W. Spaander
D. Nieboer
A. M. W. van den Ouweland
W. N. M. Dinjens
H. J. Dubbink
C. J. Tops
S. W. ten Broeke
M. J. Bruno
R. M. W. Hofstra
E. W. Steyerberg
A. Wagner
Publication date
01-07-2018
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Familial Cancer / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1389-9600
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7292
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-017-0039-1

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Familial Cancer 3/2018 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine