 |
|
Conversion Analysis for Mutation Detection in MLH1 and MSH2 in Patients With Colorectal Cancer
Graham Casey, PhD;
Noralane M. Lindor, MD;
Nickolas Papadopoulos, PhD;
Stephen N. Thibodeau, PhD;
John Moskow, PhD;
Scott Steelman, PhD;
Carolyn H. Buzin, PhD;
Steve S. Sommer, MD, PhD;
Christine E. Collins, BS;
Malinda Butz, BS;
Melyssa Aronson, MS;
Steven Gallinger, MD;
Melissa A. Barker, MSc;
Joanne P. Young, PhD;
Jeremy R. Jass, MD;
John L. Hopper, PhD;
Anh Diep, BS;
Bharati Bapat, PhD;
Michael Salem, MD;
Daniela Seminara, PhD, MPH;
Robert Haile, PhD; for the Colon Cancer Family Registry
JAMA. 2005;293:799-809.
Context The accurate identification and interpretation of germline mutations in mismatch repair genes in colorectal cancer cases is critical for clinical management. Current data suggest that mismatch repair mutations are highly heterogeneous and that many mutations are not detected when conventional DNA sequencing alone is used.
Objective To evaluate the potential of conversion analysis compared with DNA sequencing alone to detect heterogeneous germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 in colorectal cancer patients.
Design, Setting, and Participants Multicenter study with patients who participate in the Colon Cancer Family Registry. Mutation analyses were performed in participant samples determined to have a high probability of carrying mismatch repair germline mutations. Samples from a total of 64 hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer cases, 8 hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer–like cases, and 17 cases diagnosed prior to age 50 years were analyzed from June 2002 to June 2003.
Main Outcome Measures Classification of family members as carriers or noncarriers of germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6; mutation data from conversion analysis compared with genomic DNA sequencing.
Results Genomic DNA sequencing identified 28 likely deleterious exon mutations, 4 in-frame deletion mutations, 16 missense changes, and 22 putative splice site mutations. Conversion analysis identified all mutations detected by genomic DNA sequencing—plus an additional exon mutation, 12 large genomic deletions, and 1 exon duplication mutation—yielding an increase of 33% (14/42) in diagnostic yield of deleterious mutations. Conversion analysis also showed that 4 of 16 missense changes resulted in exon skipping in transcripts and that 17 of 22 putative splice site mutations affected splicing or mRNA transcript stability. Conversion analysis provided an increase of 56% (35/63) in the diagnostic yield of genetic testing compared with genomic DNA sequencing alone.
Conclusions The data confirm the heterogeneity of mismatch repair mutations and reveal that many mutations in colorectal cancer cases would be missed using conventional genomic DNA sequencing alone. Conversion analysis substantially increases the diagnostic yield of genetic testing for mismatch repair mutations in patients diagnosed as having colorectal cancer.
Author Affiliations: Department of Cancer Biology, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio (Dr Casey); Departments of Medical Genetics (Dr Lindor) and Laboratory Medicine and Pathology (Dr Thibodeau and Ms Butz), Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minn; GMP Genetics, Waltham, Mass (Drs Papadopoulos, Moskow, Steelman, and Salem and Ms Collins); Clinical Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory, City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif (Drs Buzin and Sommer); Departments of Surgery and Pathology, Mt Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario (Ms Aronson and Drs Gallinger and Bapat); Cojoint Gastroenterology Laboratory, Bancroft Centre, Herston, Australia (Ms Barker and Dr Young); Department of Pathology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec (Dr Jass); Centre for Genetic Epidemiology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia (Dr Hopper); Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California–Norris Cancer Center, Los Angeles (Ms Diep and Dr Haile); National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md (Dr Seminara).
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Clinicopathologic and Pedigree Differences in Amsterdam I-Positive Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer Families According to Tumor Microsatellite Instability Status
Valle et al.
JCO 2007;25:781-786.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Lynch Syndrome (Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer) Diagnostics
Lagerstedt Robinson et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:291-299.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Prediction of germline mutations and cancer risk in the Lynch syndrome.
Chen et al.
JAMA 2006;296:1479-1487.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Molecular basis for subdividing hereditary colon cancer?
Grady
Gut 2005;54:1676-1678.
FULL TEXT
Differential Features of Colorectal Cancers Fulfilling Amsterdam Criteria without Involvement of the Mutator Pathway
Llor et al.
Clin. Cancer Res. 2005;11:7304-7310.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Progress in Genetic Testing, Classification, and Identification of Lynch Syndrome
Vasen and Boland
JAMA 2005;293:2028-2030.
FULL TEXT
Medical Applications of Biotechnology
Fontanarosa and DeAngelis
JAMA 2005;293:866-867.
FULL TEXT
|
