Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_538_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
29.08.2026
Размер:
86 Мб
Скачать
396
S. R. Kelley and E. J. Dozois
52. Berstock JR, Bunni J, Thorpe PL.Caution: laparoscopic biopsy of a large pelvic mass may result in disaster. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(5):651–3.
53. Cheng C, Tao B, Bai S, Gao G, Li S, Shang A.Anterior sacral meningocele: a new classication and treatment using the dorsal transsacral approach. Spine. 2020;45(7):444–51.
54. Hébert-Blouin MN, Sullivan PS, Merchea A, Léonard D, Spinner RJ, Dozois EJ.Neurological outcome following resection of benign presacral neurogenic tumors using a nerve-sparing technique. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(10):1185–93.
55. Alderete J, Novais EN, Dozois EJ, Rose PS, Sim FF.Morbidity and functional status of patients with pelvic neurogenic tumors after wide excision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(11):2948–53.
56. Freier DT, Stanley JC, Thompson NW.Retrorectal tumors in adults. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1971;132(4):681–6.
57. Randall RL. Giant cell tumor of the sacrum. Neurosurg Focus. 2003;15(2):E13. Review.
58. Baek SK, Hwang GS, Vinci A, Jafari MD, Jafari F, Moghadamyeghaneh Z, Pigazzi A.Retrorectal tumors: a compre­hensive literature review. World J Surg. 2016;40(8):2001–15.
59. Currarino G, Coln D, Votteler T.Triad of anorectal, sacral, and pre­sacral anomalies. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981;137(2):395–8.
60. AbouZeid AA, Mohammad SA, Abolfotoh M, Radwan AB, Ismail MME, Hassan TA. The Currarino triad: what pediatric surgeons need to know. J Pediatr Surg. 2017;52(8):1260–8.
61. Crétolle C, Pelet A, Sanlaville D, Zérah M, Amiel J, Jaubert F, Révillon Y, Baala L, Munnich A, Nihoul-Fékété C, Lyonnet S.Spectrum of HLXB9 gene mutations in Currarino syndrome and genotype-phenotype correlation. Hum Mutat. 2008;29(7):903–10.
62. Leonard D, Pendlimari R, Larson DW, Dozois EJ. Currarino syndrome: typical images of a rare condition. Tech Coloproctol. 2010;14(3):289–90.
63. Pendlimari R, Leonard D, Dozois EJ. Rare malignant neuroen­docrine transformation of a presacral teratoma in patient with Currarino syndrome. Int J Color Dis. 2010;25(11):1383–4.
64. MacCarty CS, Waugh JM, Coventry MB, Cope WF Jr. Surgical treatment of sacral and presacral tumors other than sacrococcygeal chordoma. J Neurosurg. 1965;22(5):458–64.
65. Dozois EJ, Jacofsky DJ, Billings BJ, Privitera A, Cima RR, Rose PS, Sim FH, Okuno SH, Haddock MG, Harmsen WS, Inwards CY, Larson DW.Surgical approach and oncologic outcomes following multidisciplinary management of retrorectal sarcomas. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(4):983–8.
66. Yang JC, Chang AE, Baker AR, Sindelar WF, Danforth DN, Topalian SL, DeLaney T, Glatstein E, Steinberg SM, Merino MJ, Rosenberg SA. Randomized prospective study of the benet of adjuvant radiation therapy in the treatment of soft tissue sarcomas of the extremity. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(1):197–203.
67. Feng M, Murphy J, Grifth KA, Baker LH, Sondak VK, Lucas DR, McGinn CJ, Ray ME.Long-term outcomes after radiotherapy for
retroperitoneal and deep truncal sarcoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;69(1):103–10.
68. Rosenberg SA, Tepper J, Glatstein E, Costa J, Baker A, Brennan M, DeMoss EV, Seipp C, Sindelar WF, Sugarbaker P, Wesley R.The treatment of soft-tissue sarcomas of the extremities: prospective randomized evaluations of (1) limb-sparing surgery plus radiation therapy compared with amputation and (2) the role of adjuvant che­motherapy. Ann Surg. 1982;196(3):305–15.
69. Adjuvant chemotherapy for localised resectable soft-tissue sarcoma of adults: meta-analysis of individual data. Sarcoma Meta-analysis Collaboration. Lancet. 1997;350(9092):1647–54.
70. Raut CP, Pisters PW.Retroperitoneal sarcomas: combined- modality treatment approaches. J Surg Oncol. 2006;94(1):81–7.
71. Dozois EJ, Malireddy KK, Bower TC, Stanson AW, Sim FH.Management of a retrorectal lipomatous hemangiopericytoma by preoperative vascular embolization and a multidisciplinary surgi­cal team: report of a case. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(5):1017–20.
72. Witherspoon P, Armitage J, Gatt M, Sagar PM. Laparoscopic excision of retrorectal schwannoma. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53(1):101–3.
73. Duclos J, Maggiori L, Zappa M, Ferron M, Panis Y.Laparoscopic resection of retrorectal tumors: a feasibility study in 12 consecutive patients. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(4):1223–9.
74. Fong SS, Codd R, Sagar PM.Laparoscopic excision of retrorectal tumours. Color Dis. 2014;16(11):O400–3.
75. Zhou JL, Wu B, Xiao Y, Lin GL, Wang WZ, Zhang GN, Qiu HZ. A laparoscopic approach to benign retrorectal tumors. Tech Coloproctol. 2014;18(9):825–33.
76. Manabe T, Koba R, Nagayoshi K, Sadakari Y, Fujita H, Nagai S, Ueki T, Nagai E, Nakamura M. Laparoscopic excision of neuro­genic retrorectal tumors. Asian J Endosc Surg. 2017;10(2):223–6.
77. Cataneo J, Cataldo T, Poylin V. Robotic excision of retrorectal mass. J Gastrointest Surg. 2018;22(10):1811–3.
78. Hove MG, Gil JM, Rodríguez TS, Lomas ÁF, Casajús JP, López­Farré A, Guijarro JJ.Laparoscopic approach to tailgut cyst (retro­rectal cystic hamartoma). J Minim Access Surg. 2019;15(3):262–4.
79. Mullaney TG, Lightner AL, Johnston M, Kelley SR, Larson DW, Dozois EJ.A systematic review of minimally invasive surgery for retrorectal tumors. Tech Coloproctol. 2018;22(4):255–63.
80. Bohm B, Milsom JW, Fazio VW, Lavery IC, Church JM, Oakley JR. Our approach to the management of congenital presacral tumors in adults. Int J Color Dis. 1993;8(3):134–8.
81. Cody HS 3rd, Marcove RC, Quan SH. Malignant retrorectal tumors: 28 years’ experience at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Dis Colon Rectum. 1981;24(7):501–6.
82. Maddah G, Abdollahi A, Etemadrezaie H, Ganjeifar B, Gohari B, Abdollahi M, Hassanpour M.Problems in diagnosis and treatment of retrorectal tumors: our experience in 50 patients. Acta Med Iran. 2016;54(10):644–50.
Sporadic andInherited Colorectal Cancer: How Epidemiology andMolecular Biology Guide Screening andTreatment
SeanC.Glasgow andKarinM.Hardiman
22
Key Concepts
• Colorectal cancer is caused by the accumulation of a vari­ety of genetic alterations in colonic mucosa.
• Colorectal cancer can be hereditary or sporadic (not inherited). Both forms share many of the same genetic alterations.
• Multiple hereditary forms of colorectal cancer have an expected phenotype due to the genetic alteration that increases the likelihood of the cancer.
• Screening algorithms for colorectal cancer differ between hereditary and sporadic cancer based on the time expected for an adenoma to become a carcinoma in that patient.
• Hereditary forms of colorectal cancer are more commonly seen in patients with young onset colorectal cancer.
• Treatment algorithms for hereditary colorectal cancer are directed towards removal of the cancer and decreasing future risk of additional cancers.

Introduction

This chapter outlines the basic molecular biology of both inherited and sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC). An under­standing of the molecular mechanisms underlying CRC is important for clinicians, as it explains the epidemiology of the disease and often informs treatment decisions.

Sporadic Versus Inherited Colorectal Cancer

CRC is the third leading cause of cancer-related death world­wide [1]. Cancer can either be inherited, meaning that it is
S. C. Glasgow Washington University School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, St. Louis, MO, USA
K. M. Hardiman ( University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Surgery, Birmingham, AL, USA e-mail: khardiman@uabmc.edu
*)
passed down genetically within the patient’s family or spo­radic, meaning that it was not inherited. This is somewhat simplied because there are clearly families with multiple members with CRC such that it is likely that they carry a genetic propensity for the disease, but no known genetic alteration can be identied on testing. The cause is likely either a genetic alteration that is yet to be identied or a col­lection in an individual of low-penetrance alterations that each increase risks to a lesser degree. This level of complex­ity is beyond the scope of this chapter. Most CRCs are con­sidered sporadic, and the genetics of sporadic cancer, in many ways, mirrors that of inherited CRC.
Sporadic Colorectal Cancer
Approximately 80% of CRC is considered sporadic [2]. Sporadic cancers are caused by genetic alterations in the tis­sue that becomes the tumor, whereas inherited cancers are caused by genetic alterations within the entire patient (germ­line mutations) that then secondarily lead to further altera­tions within the tissue that becomes the tumor. These alterations are typically in the same genes and pathways, but the pace and age at which they occur differ.
Epidemiology ofSporadic CRC
CRC is the third most common cancer in the United States and globally [1, 3]. Approximately 47% of cases are in women [3]. Most new CRC cases are in those over age 65 (58%), but 39% of females and 45% of males are diagnosed under age 65. Mean age of colon diagnosis is 68 for men and 72 for women, whereas the mean age of diagnosis of rectal cancer is 63 for both men and women. CRC incidence and mortality vary by ethnicity, with the highest rate in Alaskan Natives (2010–2013 incidence of 91 per 100,000) and African Americans (49 per 100,000) and the lowest in Asian Americans (32 per 100,000). The accumulation of genetic alterations causing CRC is thought to progress over several
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 S. R. Steele et al. (eds.), The ASCRS Textbook of Colon and Rectal Surgery, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66049-9_22
397
398
S. C. Glasgow and K. M. Hardiman
years. CRC is most commonly located in the right colon (41%) or the rectum (28%) [3]. Right-sided lesions are more common in older patients, and distal tumors are more com­mon in younger patients. Current endoscopic screening guidelines for average risk patients recommend starting at age 45 with repeat every 10years if patients are not found to have adenomas. These are based on the typical time to pro­gression from an adenoma to a carcinoma [4].
Risk Factors forSporadic Colorectal Cancer
The underlying causes of CRC are not clear but likely are an interplay between predisposing genetic factors and lifestyle, dietary factors, and environmental and other exposures including the gut microbiome. Individual studies as well as multiple systematic reviews support the role of diet as a risk factor for the development of CRC.Vieira etal. performed a meta-analysis of 111 studies and showed that the risk of CRC increases by 12% for every 100g/day increase in intake of red and processed meat and 7% for every 10g/day of alco­hol intake but decreases 17% for every 90 g/day of whole grains and 13% for every 400g/day of dairy [5]. The particu­lar mechanism whereby diet alters risk of CRC is not known but could, in part, be via changes in the microbiome. The gut microbiome differs signicantly between patients with and without CRC [6]. The changes in the microbiome of patients with CRC are more similar to those in people who have a diet high in red meat. In addition to dietary factors, sedentary lifestyle and obesity have been associated with most types of cancer. Increased physical activity to levels concordant with national guidelines resulted in a deceased relative risk of CRC of approximately 19% in a recent meta-analysis [7]. The mechanism whereby sedentary lifestyle predisposes to CRC may be via altered metabolism and oxidative stress [8].
Molecular Biology ofSporadic Colorectal Cancer
Genetic mutations accumulate in the colon and rectum over time as cells replicate in the mucosa of the bowel due to a combination of exposure and somatic alterations. These alterations can be nucleotide changes in the coding region of genes causing the product of these genes to be dysfunctional (as in the case of tumor suppressors), increased function of oncogenes, copy number changes where chromosomes are amplied or deleted, or epigenetic alterations causing altered transcription of genes through promoter methylation (Table 22.1). In general, sporadic CRC can be split into hypermutated tumors, which often have over 1000 mutations and very few copy number changes, and non-hypermutated tumors with fewer mutations and more copy number changes [9]. Because cellular functions are caused not just by indi­vidual proteins but by groups of them working together in a pathway, alterations in individual genes can be assessed across known pathways to identify important pathways. In CRC, the recurrently altered pathways are in WNT, MAPK,
Table 22.1 Sporadic colorectal cancer molecular genetics
Sporadic colorectal cancer Topic Summary Genetic
alterations
Pathways/ genes
Consensus molecular subtypes
CIN chromosomal instability, MSI microsatellite instability, CIMP CpG island methylator phenotype, EMT epithelial-to-mesenchymal transi­tion, CNV copy number variation
CIN: Accumulation of CNV with varied karyotypes from cell to cell and LOH leading to loss of tumor suppressor genes and mutations in key driver genes CIMP: Tumors are hypermutated, BRAF mutation common, widespread epigenetic promoter methylation of DNA Gene point mutations, insertions, deletions: 60–1000’s of mutations per tumor
Wnt pathway; APC, TP53; TGF-β and EMT;
PI3K
CMS1: MSI immune, 14%, hypermutated, more often right-sided
CMS2: Canonical, 37%, Wnt and MYC activation, CNV high, more often left-sided
CMS3: Metabolic, 13%, CNV and CIMP low CMS4: Mesenchymal, 23%, CNV high, EMT,
worse survival
PI3K, TGF-β, and p53 pathways. Genetic alterations are only clinically relevant if they are shown to be biomarkers of disease or if they can be targeted with treatment. Thus far, most alterations in CRC are neither.
Adenoma toCarcinoma Pathway
In 1990, after in-depth studies of various stages of CRC, Fearon and Vogelstein outlined a model of CRC develop­ment that proposed that the progressive accumulation of alterations in the genome caused abnormal growth, starting with normal colonic mucosa, progressing to adenoma and then to adenocarcinoma. This early description described alterations in the genome that were found commonly in cer­tain genes in CRC via mutation, copy number change, or hypomethylation [10]. They highlighted loss of tumor sup­pressors as well as alterations in oncogenes (Table 22.1). Since that time, our understanding of CRC progression has advanced, but many of the original concepts remain.
Mutations
With the advent of next-generation sequencing came the ability to know the genetic alterations in solid tumors. For any two patients with CRC, they likely share alterations in only one or two genes, as there is substantial inter-tumor heterogeneity in CRC. Because of the inherent genome instability found in tumors, many of the mutations identied in sequencing studies are not clinically consequential. Since so many mutations may occur and they differ from one tumor to another, predictive models are used to determine whether alterations in any one gene are important. These important mutations are called “driver mutations” meaning
22 Sporadic andInherited Colorectal Cancer: How Epidemiology andMolecular Biology Guide Screening andTreatment
399
that they promote tumorigenesis and tumor progression. The most common driver mutations in CRC have been described in a series of publications and include mutations in APC, TP53, KRAS, and PIK3CA [9, 11]. For example, APC is the most commonly mutated gene in CRC (72% mutation rate in The Cancer Genome Atlas) and is important as an early driver of adenoma formation. The APC protein acts as a tumor suppressor. Alteration in APC causes accu­mulation of beta- catenin which translocates to the nucleus and binds to LEF and TCF, causing transcription upregulat­ing multiple pathways. In addition, loss or mutation of APC can lead to transcriptional activation independent of ß-catenin. TP53 mutation is the second most common alter­ation in CRC.It is more commonly altered in patients with more advanced disease and is considered a late driver. It is a tumor suppressor gene because its normal function is to cause damaged cells to stop dividing until the DNA can be repaired and to undergo apoptosis if the DNA cannot be repaired. Mutation or loss of TP53 results in increased pro­liferation, decreased DNA repair, and decreased apoptosis. Mutations of clinical relevance include RAS mutations which occur in about half of patients with CRC including KRAS and NRAS. These are important because patients with RAS mutations do not benet from treatment with anti-epi­dermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents [12]. Additionally, around 10% of patients have tumors contain­ing mutations in BRAF, which is important because this is a biomarker of worse survival in stage 4 patients [13]. Although BRAF inhibitors can improve outcome in other tumor types with these mutations, in 95% of CRCs are resis­tant to BRAF inhibition via redundant alterations in the MAPK pathway [14]. Another key pathway in CRC that is especially important in metastasis is the epithelial- to­mesenchymal transition (EMT). [15] EMT is the process whereby epithelial cells acquire mesenchymal properties. This allows the cells to change their architecture, interact differently with their microenvironment, and become inva­sive. Proteins important in EMT in CRC are ZEB1 and ZEB2, TGF-β, SNAIL, and vimentin. EMT and ZEB2 spe­cically have such an important role in metastasis that small trials have shown that addition of nuclear ZEB2 staining in CRC to the staging system will improve patient stratica­tion for prediction of outcome [16].
Most tumors contain 100–200 mutations, while about
15% of tumors contain 1000s of mutations. These hypermu­tated tumors typically harbor genetic or epigenetic altera­tions in the mismatch repair genes causing rapid accumulation of mutations; thus, they are called hypermutated tumors. The inherited form of this is called Lynch syndrome (LS) which is caused by somatic mutations in the mismatch repair path­way genes and will be covered later in the chapter. Stage for stage, these tumors have better outcome than CRCs without a high mutation burden, and studies have shown that these
tumors are responsive to immunotherapy, whereas most non­Lynch tumors are not [17].
In addition to the inter-tumor genetic heterogeneity, there is also intra-tumor genetic heterogeneity whereby different areas of a tumor and its associated metastasis can harbor dif­ferent mutations and copy number changes because tumors are made up of many genetically related sub-clones [1820]. These sub-clones can have different abilities and drug resis­tance proles with substantive clinical implications.
Chromosomal Alterations
About 85% of CRCs harbor substantial chromosomal altera­tions. This is called chromosome instability or CIN.Hypermutated tumors, which make up about 15% of tumors, are the exception and have few copy number changes. Common copy number variations in tumors affected by CIN include loss of 8p, 17p, and 18q and gains in chromosomes 8q, 13, and 20q [9, 21, 22]. These gains and losses affect the genes on these chromosomes which can have profound implications for tumors. For example, the tumor suppressor TP53 is on 17p which is commonly lost.
Epigenetic Alterations inColorectal Cancer
CpG islands are commonly found in the promoters of genes. When these islands are hypermethylated, the downstream gene can be silenced. This is the mechanism for many spo­radic microsatellite unstable (MSI-high, or MSI-H) tumors whereby the promoter of the mismatch repair MLH1 gene is silenced by hypermethylation [23]. These tumors then lack functional MLH1 protein and then accumulate genetic mutations quickly because they lack this form of DNA repair. This CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) is found in sessile serrated adenomas and the cancers that arise from them [24]. These tumors commonly harbor BRAF mutations.
Molecular Subtypes ofCRC
Due to genetic heterogeneity and differences in the effects of genetic mutations, gene expression is critical in tumor phe­notype. In 2015, an international group of researchers pub­lished the most comprehensive study to date of gene transcription data from 4151 patients [25]. Using multiple classication algorithms and network clustering, they cate­gorized tumors into four consensus molecular subtypes. These subtypes, called consensus molecular subtype (CMS) 1–4, recognize the heterogeneity that makes up CRC (Table 22.1). CMS1 tumors are hypermutated, MSI-high tumors with a high immune inltrate. Tumors with an increased number of copy number variations are CMS2–4. CMS2 tumors have alterations described as canonical with upregulation of WNT and MYC targets along with increased expression of EGFR and HER2. CMS3 tumors are classied by metabolic dysregulation and characterized by KRAS
400
S. C. Glasgow and K. M. Hardiman
mutations. CMS4 tumors have activated EMT with increased TGFβ, extracellular matrix, and integrins. These classica­tions have clinical relevance. CMS4 tumors have the worst outcome and CMS2 have the best. The full ramications of these classications are yet to come.
Right vs. Left CRC
The right and left colon have distinct embryologic origins as well as differences in their microbiome and exposure to tox­ins such as bile acids, and thus, it is not surprising that they would have somewhat different molecular phenotypes for tumors developing in the two areas [26]. Right-sided tumors are more likely to be hypermutated and are more common in older patients, whereas left-sided tumors are more likely to be found in younger patients. The sides have different distri­butions of the consensus molecular phenotypes with CMS1 and 3 subtypes being more common on the right and CMS2 and 4 more common on the left. This has therapeutic impli­cations; whereby early, right-sided tumors have a better prognosis, but once metastatic, they have a worse outcome [27, 28]. This difference based on sidedness with metastasis may be because of the high rate of BRAF mutations in meta­static right-sided tumors which have a poor prognosis. Differences in survival between patients with right- and left­sided tumors may also be due to differences in response to treatment. A 2018 study of response to bevacizumab and cetuximab in metastatic CRC found that primary tumor site was associated with response to biologic therapy [29]. Right­sided primary tumor location was associated with higher mortality regardless of biologic therapy type. In patients with wild-type KRAS tumors, treatment with cetuximab beneted only those with left-sided primary tumors and was associated with signicantly poorer survival among those with right-sided primary tumors. This study highlights the need for better understanding of prognostic factors to guide treatment.
Early stage intraperitoneal colon tumors (stages I–II) are typically treated with surgical resection alone, whereas later stage tumors, which have demonstrated the ability to move from where they started and invade nearby lymph nodes (stage III) or distant organs (stage IV), are typically treated with chemotherapy either as an adjunct to surgical resection or as a primary palliative treatment. The typical chemothera­peutic regimen used to treat CRC is the combination of 5-eurouracil, oxaliplatin, and leucovorin (FOLFOX). This combination yields survival benet for patients with stage III and IV disease. Together, these drugs have a high response rate in CRC. They are not molecularly targeted. Targeted therapies directed at VEGF, EGFR, and kinases are available for metastatic CRC. Many patients are resistant to these drugs, likely due to redundancies between different path­ways in CRC such that tumors can increase untargeted path­ways to become resistant to targeted therapies.
Young Onset CRC
Epidemiology
In many countries around the world, there is an increasing incidence of CRC in people under the age of 50, referred to as young-onset CRC (YO-CRC) [30, 31]. The incidence of YO-CRC has increased signicantly over the past 20years for unknown reasons. The increase is predominantly left­sided, especially rectal. These patients often present with symptomatic tumors due to the location, and the younger they are, the more likely they are to present at an advanced stage [32]. Due to the increased risk of CRC in young adults, the American Cancer Society has decreased its recom­mended age to start screening in average-risk patients to 45 years old, but the recommendation by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) to start screening at age 50 has not changed [33].
Screening forSporadic CRC
Screening guidelines for CRC directly relate to the time that it takes for a polyp to become an adenocarcinoma and at what age does the risk of developing CRC increase to the point where screening is more efcacious than harmful. If an average-risk patient has a low risk of CRC based on nding no polyps on their initial screening colonoscopy, then another intervention is likely not needed for 10 years. However, when patients are found to have polyps, particularly when there are multiple lesions or high-risk lesions, the patient has proven that for genetic or environmental reasons, they are at increased risk and their screening interval should be shorter.
Treatment forSporadic CRC
As will be discussed to a greater extent elsewhere, the treat­ment of CRC is based upon the stage at which it is identied.
Management
The assessment and treatment of patients presenting with YO-CRC is similar to tumors in older patients except that they are more likely to need urgent intervention for obstruc­tion [34, 35]. YO-CRC patients have a high prevalence of inherited CRC and should undergo testing. As little is known about differences in treatment response in YO-CRC patients, recommendations for management remain largely unchanged.
Genetics ofYO-CRC
YO-CRC patients should undergo genetic testing, as herita­ble CRC will be found in 16–20% of YO-CRC patients [2,
36]. Many of these patients (75%) will not have a rst-degree
relative with CRC [2]. The increasing incidence of CRC in those under the age of 50 does not appear to be due to an
22 Sporadic andInherited Colorectal Cancer: How Epidemiology andMolecular Biology Guide Screening andTreatment
401
increase in inherited CRC, but this is difcult to distinguish given changes in testing and evolution of understanding of the causes of inherited CRC over time. The testing strategy will vary by institution, but testing should be directed by clinical phenotype and family history. If neither point to a particular genetic syndrome, then broader panel testing should be considered. Even for those patients where a heri­table form of CRC is not found, the genetics of the tumor itself differ from tumors in older patients. YO-CRC that is sporadic typically has increased copy number change and is microsatellite stable [37]. Lieu and colleagues assessed the mutation rate across 403 cancer-related genes in 18,218 patients and found that those under the age of 50 had more alterations in TP53 and CTNNB1 but fewer mutations in APC, KRAS, BRAF, and FAM123B. How these and other genetic alterations change the biology of YO-CRC and its response to treatment is yet to be determined.
Inherited CRC
Inherited CRC is dened as CRC that is inherited through the transfer of an increased risk for CRC due to genetic alter­ations that have been passed on from one’s parents. Each inherited genetic alteration causes a somewhat variable phe­notype, and each has CRC as a part of the multiple pheno­typic expressions of that genotype. Inherited CRC falls into two basic categories, those related to inherited polyposis and those that are not due to polyposis. Patients with polyposis develop polyps of the colon or rectum earlier and in greater number than patients with sporadic polyps. Patients with non-polyposis inherited CRC have an increased chance that a polyp will progress more rapidly to a cancer than a spo­radic polyp does. The genetic alterations that cause inherited CRC have, in many cases, not been known before the pheno­type of the disease was known, and so the syndromes are often dened by their phenotype rather than the mutation itself, as multiple different genetic alterations can lead to similar phenotypes. When thinking of treatment of these patients, it is important to remember to treat the phenotype of the patient and family rather than only their mutation status since a substantial percentage of patients with an apparently familial cancer will not have a known mutation identied [38]. This is likely due to our lack of knowledge of all the genetic mutations that produce an increased risk phenotype, rather than a true lack of a genetic alteration.
Lynch Syndrome (Hereditary Non-polyposis CRC)
LS is the most common inherited CRC syndrome, with Lynch-associated genetic defects identied in approximately 3% of CRC patients [39]. LS is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. Family history plays an important role in identifying affected probands and prompting screening of at-
risk family members, although establishing the diagnosis of LS requires testing for specic germline mutations in mis­match repair (MMR) genes. Once diagnosed with LS, rec­ommendations for screening and treatment can be tailored for the patient and their at-risk relatives.
The designation of hereditary non-polyposis CRC (or HNPCC) denotes a familial CRC syndrome that meets cer­tain criteria based on presenting factors and family history, while the “LS” designation is reserved for patients in whom germline genetic testing conrms specic mutations in MMR genes. The term “non-polyposis” may be miscon­strued to mean that LS-associated CRCs do not follow a typi­cal progression from adenoma to invasive carcinoma. On the contrary, most (but perhaps not all) CRCs in MMR-decient patients do arise from adenomatous polyps. In fact, LS patients have a similar incidence of adenomas as patients with sporadic CRC [40]. However, LS-related carcinogene­sis progresses more rapidly than sporadic carcinogenesis, some developing from seemingly normal mucosa in as quickly as a year [41].
Genetic Mutation
The genetic alteration causing malignancy in patients with LS is a defect in the mechanisms for repairing acquired genetic defects. During DNA replication, mistakes are made at a rate of about 1 in every 10,000 bases which is called mismatch. The four major genes responsible for mismatch repair (MMR) are MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2. In addi- tion, deletions in the 3 end of EPCAM leads to methylation of the promoter region of MSH2, resulting in silencing of this gene and clinical presentation similar to genetic mutation of MSH2 itself. Patients with LS have an inherited defect in a specic MMR gene and then acquire a “second hit” to their remaining functional copy. This leads to complete loss of function of MMR and subsequent accumulation of genetic errors throughout the genome, leading to cancers mostly in organs with a higher rate of cellular turnover such as the colon, endometrium, stomach, and urologic system.
Tumors with defective MMR often display high levels of microsatellite instability (MSI). Microsatellites are tandem base pair repeats in the DNA, typically 1–3 nucleotides in length. Impaired mismatch repair mechanisms allow these microsatellites to proliferate. MSI can be detected using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays. Cleaving of DNA during PCR leads to irregular strand lengths at specic inter­vals and the designation of instability. By denition, tumors that are high in instability measurements (MSI-H) have greater than 30% instability at common loci.
Overall, approximately 15% of CRCs are MSI-H, reect­ing a possible deciency in MMR [42]. However, not all MSI results from inherited mutations in MMR genes. Approximately 70% of MMR deciency is caused by spo­radic hypermethylation of MLH1, leading to suppressed
402
S. C. Glasgow and K. M. Hardiman
expression of this particular gene repair product and the sub­sequent accumulation of genetic damage. Hypermethylation is strongly associated with a specic somatic mutation in the BRAF oncogene (specically, the V600E mutation) which is found in 69% of hypermethylated tumors; thus, loss of expression of MLH1 should prompt further investigation of the status of BRAF [43]. In general, if a patient has an MLH1-decient tumor, and a BRAF mutation is found, it is unlikely the patient has Lynch. However, if BRAF is normal, the patient should be considered for germline mutational analysis to look for Lynch-associated mutations.
Clinically, MMR gene function is assessed either by MSI measurement using PCR or direct staining for specic gene products using immunohistochemistry (IHC for MMR). MSI and IHC testing has comparable sensitivity and specicity for defects in MMR gene function; the preferred testing approach is institution dependent, although IHC tends to be less expensive than MSI testing and has supplanted MSI test­ing in many areas [44]. It is important to note that MSI and IHC testing of the tumor is an evaluation of the phenotype of the tumor itself, and thus neither MSI nor IHC testing con­rms the diagnosis of LS.LS is conrmed only by nding germline mutations on subsequent genetic testing.
Additionally, specic patterns of differential expression may be observed. For instance, MLH1 and PMS2 proteins function as a heterodimer; loss of expression of both indi­cates either an alteration in MLH1 due to somatic methyla­tion (sporadic cancer) or MLH1 germline mutation (as in LS) [45]. For these reasons, loss of expression of MLH1 should lead to further tumor-specic genetic testing. Conversely, functional absences of MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2 typically arise from germline mutations.
Diagnosis andHistology
The initial identication of a “family cancer syndrome” by Henry Lynch and colleagues in 1966 described two Midwestern kindreds who exhibited multigenerational auto­somal dominant inheritance of colorectal, endometrial, and other malignancies [46]. The authors noted that family members likely represented “carcinoma-susceptible geno­types.” In 1991, the clinical context was further rened by the International Collaborative Group on HNPCC meeting in Amsterdam, with the development of guidelines for iden­tifying potentially affected individuals. These denitions were broadened in 1999 by the Amsterdam II criteria to include non-colonic malignancies. The Bethesda criteria were subsequently developed to better rene which patients may benet from additional workup with genetic testing. Over the last two decades, additional research has focused on improving the sensitivity and specicity of these param­eters. Clinical online or downloadable risk prediction mod­els exist for determining the likelihood a family member of a patient with CRC has LS.Both PREMM5 (premm.dfci.
harvard.edu) and MMRpro (projects.iq.harvard.edu/bayes-
mendel/mmrpro) assess the risk in unaffected individuals. In the setting of a suggestive family history, use of these models may reduce unnecessary genetic testing [44]. Ultimately, routine MMR testing of biopsied or resected CRCs has largely supplanted reliance on family history for identifying potential LS.Figure 22.1 depicts one proposed pathway for reliably conrming LS while eliminating pos­sible confounding conditions. When establishing the diag­nosis of LS, it remains important to advise patients of the risk for other family members. Since LS is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner, offspring of the proband have a 50% chance of being affected. Genetic counseling and germline testing are recommended for all immediate family members of LS patients.
As previously mentioned, routine testing for MMR path­way function in resected colorectal and endometrial cancers has become standard in most facilities. The most recent guidelines from the NCCN and the American Gastroenterological Association recommend universal screening for MMR function in all resected CRC specimens [44, 47]. This may be accomplished either with determina­tion of MSI status or IHC staining for MMR proteins. Rectal cancer biopsy specimens should also undergo routine screen­ing, as rectal cancer patients are often treated with neoadju­vant therapy which may interfere with this analysis post hoc. An exciting near-term alternative to sequential MSI or IHC testing followed by germline evaluation is next-generation sequencing of the tumor biopsy itself. Compared to tradi­tional multiple sequential evaluation for LS (e.g., MSI/IHC, followed by germline blood or buccal testing), up-front tumor sequencing demonstrated equivalent specicity and superior sensitivity for LS in a prospective cohort of CRC patients [43]. Next-generation tumor sequencing has the added benet of off-target testing for other mutations such as KRAS/NRAS and DPYD that may inuence chemotherapeu­tic decision-making, and it may shorten the time to nal diagnosis of LS, thereby providing the surgeon and patient more complete information prior to surgery.
LS-related CRCs have certain phenotypic and histologic ndings. MMR-decient cancers may present at an earlier stage; decient MMR is seen in 20% of stage II, 11% of stage III, and only 3.5% of stage IV CRCs [45, 48]. MMR­decient colon cancers more commonly arise on the right side, although MMR-decient cancers in the descending or sigmoid colon or rectal cancer may certainly occur. Compared to sporadic tumors, LS-associated CRC is more often poorly differentiated and presents with mucinous or signet ring cell features on histology. Tumor-inltrating lym­phocytes (TILs) are commonly observed as well [42]. The robust immune response by TILs relates to the greater expression of tumor-related antigens present in tumors with high mutational rates, particularly the accumulation of
22 Sporadic andInherited Colorectal Cancer: How Epidemiology andMolecular Biology Guide Screening andTreatment
Any new colorectal
cancer
Tumor testing for
MSI or IHC
Family history suggestive of
Lynch syndrome, but:
• No personal history of cancer,
• No known family history of Lynch mutation, and
• Tumor tissue from affected relative not available
403
IHC abnormalNormal
Missing MLH1
MLH1 promoter
methylation or BRAF
MLH1 promoter
hypermethylated or
BRAF mutation present
• Likely sporadic colorectal cancer
• Consider other famillal cancer syndromes
MSI high
Missing:
• PMS2 (and MLH1 present),
• MSH2, or
• MSH6
BRAF negative or
MLH1 promoter not
hypermethylated
>5% probability
Germllne genetic
testing
Positive for Lynch
mutation
• Colonoscopy every 1–2 years
• Consider aspirin
• Germline genetic testing for 1 degree relatives
st
Predictive model
5% probability
Negative
Consider other familial
cancer syndromes
Fig. 22.1 A proposed algorithm for evaluating patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer for Lynch syndrome. (Used with permission from Rubenstein etal. [44]. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier)
frameshift mutations that lead to synthesis of neoantigens recognized by CD8+ T cells [42, 49].
diagnosed with a sebaceous tumor [51]. Use of immunosup­pressant medications may unmask MTS as an underlying condition.
Lynch Syndrome Variants
Turcot Syndrome
In addition to CRC, patients with Turcot syndrome develop tumors of the central nervous system. Also termed “brain tumor polyposis syndrome” or BTPS, Turcot syndrome can be due to mismatch repair deciencies as seen in Lynch (type
1) or related to biallelic loss of the APC gene as seen with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) (type 2) [50]. Glioblastoma multiforme is the most common neurological cancer in type 1, while patients with type 2 may develop medulloblastomas.
Familial CRC X
Patients who meet clinical guidelines for HNPCC based on family history and age at presentation (e.g., Bethesda crite­ria) but have microsatellite-stable (MSS) tumors are desig­nated as having familial CRC X syndrome. Such patients tend to present at a later age than those with LS, colon can­cers occur distally more often, and they seemingly do not have similar risk for extra-colonic malignancies [52, 53]. While the exact genetic mechanism is unknown, unlike LS cancers which tend to have stable chromosomal length, familial CRC X-related cancers demonstrate a high degree of
Muir-Torre Syndrome
chromosomal instability more similar to sporadic cancers.
Patients with Muir-Torre syndrome (MTS) present with skin structure-related neoplasms, predominantly sebaceous gland tumors. While most commonly caused by loss of genes involved in LS, approximately one-third of MTS may be related to MUTYH-associated polyposis [51]. Sebaceous adenomas and carcinomas are rarely seen outside of MTS, and genetic counseling should be considered for any patient
Screening Recommendations
Large population-based retrospective studies suggest that while routine biannual colonoscopy reduces the incidence of CRC in LS patients, such surveillance still fails to prevent a substantial number of cancers [39, 41, 5456]. Conversely, others have shown that high compliance with recommended
404
S. C. Glasgow and K. M. Hardiman
screening in LS patients yields cancer-specic survival rates similar to non-affected family members [55]. A recent meta­analysis found that surveillance colonoscopy was associated with a decreased incidence of CRC (OR 0.23) and decreased CRC mortality (OR 0.06) compared to no screening [44]. On average, the simple act of screening increased life expec­tancy by 7years. Specically, for people with mutations in MLH1 or MSH2, the estimated risk of developing CRC over the subsequent 5 years increases from 1in 71 for males (1in 102 for females) in their 20s to 1in 7 for males (1in 12 for females) by age 50years [57]. In light of these ndings, most experts recommend surveillance colonoscopy every 1–2years in patients diagnosed with LS.Carriers of MLH1 or MSH2 mutations should undergo screening colonoscopy starting at age 20–25years; colonoscopy should commence at age 30 for those with MSH6 and no later than age 35 for PMS2 [58, 59].
Women with LS are at increased risk for developing endometrial and ovarian cancers, and after CRC, endome­trial cancer is the most common malignancy in LS.MSH6in particular conveys elevated risk, with a lifetime incidence of over 40% [58]. Based on these risks, female LS patients should undergo annual bimanual exams with endometrial sampling and transvaginal ultrasound starting around age 30–35years [58]. Such patients should also be counseled on prophylactic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo­oophorectomy (TAH/BSO) after completion of childbearing, a recommendation supported by a large case-control study of women with Lynch that found 100% risk reduction in subse­quent gynecologic malignancy [60]. Strong consideration should be given to concurrent TAH/BSO in LS patients requiring colectomy. Although LS patients are at risk for other malignancies besides colorectal and gynecologic can­cers, the estimated lifetime risks for these other malignancies do not exceed 3% regardless of gene mutation [61]. Transitional cell malignancies within the urinary system occur more commonly relative to the average-risk popula­tion. Annual urinalysis effectively screens for urothelial can­cers. Similarly, there is an elevated incidence of upper gastrointestinal epithelial malignancy; a baseline esophago­gastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with patient-tailored surveil­lance should be done at age 30–35years, and repeated every 2–3years, especially in individuals with a family history of LS-related gastric cancers.
Surgical Treatment
Since knowledge of LS-related gene defects may inuence recommendations for extent of surgery, it is preferable that biopsies of clinical cancers obtained during colonoscopy undergo routine testing for MMR gene products. If LS is either genetically conrmed or there is a high index of clini­cal suspicion, patients should be counseled on the surgical options for treating their colon cancer. Multiple studies favor
total abdominal colectomy over segmental resection in patients with LS [6265]. The most recent US Multisociety Task Force on CRC and ASCRS Clinical Practice Guidelines both recommend total abdominal colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis in LS patients [58, 59].
Extended resection reduces the risk for developing sec­ondary colorectal malignancy. A large registry-based cohort study found that the risk of metachronous CRCs increases to over 60% at 30 years [64]. This risk was reduced in LS patients who underwent subtotal colectomy at the index diagnosis. Notably, the observed risk for developing a meta­chronous colon cancer in the segmental resection group approximated the de novo risk associated with LS, suggest­ing there was no risk reduction of subsequent malignancy when patients undergo segmental resection only [59]. Kalady etal. found that 47% of patients meeting Amsterdam clinical criteria for HNPCC developed advanced adenomas or CRC following index segmental colectomy at a median follow-up of 69 months, compared to only 19% of those treated with total colectomy [62]. Similar results were reported in a meta- analysis of almost 1000 LS patients; metachronous cancers developed more commonly follow­ing segmental vs. total colectomy (23.5 vs. 6.8%, respec­tively; OR 3.7) [63]. However, no difference in overall survival between the two groups was found. Others have conrmed the lack of demonstrable survival benet follow­ing total colectomy [56].
Factors inuencing the decision for less radical resection include tumor stage, age, fecal continence status, anticipated reliability with surveillance examinations, and patient pref­erence. There is little benet to prophylactic colectomy in patients with incurable stage IV disease. Compared to seg­mental resection, total abdominal colectomy leads to signi­cantly greater stool frequency and adversely impacts social function [66]. LS patients should be counseled on the antici­pated bowel function prior to surgery. Another reasonable option is subtotal colectomy and ileosigmoid anastomosis. Patients would be expected to enjoy nearly the same risk reduction as total abdominal colectomy and would still be able to undergo surveillance via exible sigmoidoscopy while having improved bowel function.
Patients with LS and rectal cancer may be a group who are best served with segmental resection [59]. The alternative of total proctocolectomy with or without IPAA presents a pronounced functional difference from the patient perspec­tive versus restorative proctectomy. However, the risk of developing a second colorectal malignancy following proc­tectomy varies between 15% and 27% within the rst decade postoperatively, even with regular endoscopic surveillance [67, 68]. In addition to patient-specic features, factors such as the necessity of pelvic radiation and the prospects for sphincter salvage based on tumor location will impact this decision.
22 Sporadic andInherited Colorectal Cancer: How Epidemiology andMolecular Biology Guide Screening andTreatment
405
Given the signicant risk for metachronous CRC, regular colonoscopy on an annual basis is recommended after colec­tomy [59]. Although no clear benet has been demonstrated in terms of survival, such intensive surveillance may detect malignancy at an earlier stage [64].
Medical Treatment
Patients with stage III MMR-decient CRCs are treated with oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy (e.g., FOLFOX), similar to those with sporadic tumors [69, 70]. However, single-agent 5-FU-based chemotherapy may be less efca­cious in patients with LS, and no survival benet is seen in stage II MMR-decient patients, even in the setting of other high-risk features [71]. Interestingly, although CRCs with mutated MMR genes present more commonly with poor dif­ferentiation and mucinous features, LS patients experience better stage-matched survival and fewer recurrences com­pared to sporadic cancers, particularly for cancers in the proximal colon [69, 70, 72, 73]. As mentioned above, MMR- decient cancers express high levels of tumor-related neoan­tigens, prompting increased TIL presence [49]. An exciting recent development is clinical application of immune­modulating drugs for ghting solid tumors. Pembrolizumab and nivolumab are specic antibodies to the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1); collectively, these drugs are commonly termed immune checkpoint inhibitors [17]. Along with ipilimumab (an antibody against cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4)), these immunotherapies are FDA­approved for treating metastatic CRCs with high microsatel­lite instability. Evidence suggests that most MMR-decient tumors respond to immunotherapy but most MMR procient tumors do not [17]. A conrmatory phase III trial is under­way, comparing overall survival from colon cancers with decient mismatch repair treated with adjuvant FOLFOX vs. FOLFOX plus atezolizumab (a PD-L1 antibody) [45].
Long-term aspirin use seems to reduce the risk of subse­quent CRC in LS patients. The CAPP2 randomized con­trolled trial investigated the utility of aspirin 600mg/day in patients with LS [40]. Investigators found a 50% reduction in cancer incidence in patients randomized to the aspirin inter­ventional arm over a period of 4years. Notably, despite regu­lar endoscopic surveillance, 7% of non-aspirin study participants developed CRC during the study. Routine aspi­rin use is recommended by the American Gastroenterological Association, while the American College of Gastroenterology makes it a conditional recommendation until further evi­dence is obtained [44, 74].
POLE/POLD1-Related Hereditary Cancer
A relatively newly described syndrome is polymerase proofreading- associated polyposis (PPAP). With an autoso­mal dominant inheritance and high penetrance, PPAP devel­ops due to inactivating mutations in either POLE or POLD1
[75, 76]. These proteins are members of the highly conserved DNA polymerase family of genes involved with both synthe­sizing and proofreading DNA. POLD1 also participates in mismatch repair, and defective polymerase proofreading in combination with decient MMR can contribute to the phe­notype [77]. Patients with POLD1 or POLE mutations exhibit limited adenomatous polyposis and are at increased risk for CRC, and women with POLD1 mutations have ele­vated risk for endometrial and breast cancers [78]. No rec­ommendations for screening exist, although frequent colonoscopy and colectomy as indicated based on phenotype seem reasonable [74].
Familial Adenomatous Polyposis
Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) accounts for approx­imately 1% of CRCs. The syndrome is clinically dened by the presence of over 100 synchronous colorectal adenomas. FAP affects men and women equally and has a prevalence between 2 and 3 cases per 100,000 worldwide [74]. Along with extracolonic manifestations as described below, FAP results in a near 100% risk for developing CRC by age 40years [79]. While there is a strong familial association, de novo cases of FAP account for 25% of the disease, and these patients typically have invasive malignancy at presentation.
Genetic Mutations
FAP is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner with near 100% penetrance. The syndrome is caused by monoallelic mutation of the APC gene, a tumor suppressor located on chromosome 5q21. Adenoma formation occurs when the second gene copy is rendered nonfunctional through an acquired mutation or loss. The fact that 85% of sporadic CRCs (and 100% in FAP) harbor APC mutations reinforces its central role in progression to malignancy.
Over 800 mutations in APC have been described. Inactivating mutations most often occur towards the 5 end of exon 15in a portion termed the mutation cluster region. Limited genotype-phenotype correlations exist predicting the course of the disease. For instance, individuals with over 1000 polyps typically exhibit mutation in the mid-portion of the gene (exons 1250–1464). Specic mutations between exons 311 and 1444 predict congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment (CHRPE, see below), and mutations after 1444 correlate with desmoid development [80]. Such corre­lations remain imperfect; although more common with changes in specic coding regions, desmoid disease may occur with almost any described APC mutation [81]. No reli­able predictors for upper gastrointestinal adenomas are known.
Extracolonic Manifestations
Several extracolonic conditions arise in patients with APC mutations. As prophylactic colectomy for FAP has become