Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Prevention and early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) is a global priority, with many countries conducting population-based CRC screening programs. Although colonoscopy is the most accurate diagnostic method for early CRC detection, adherence remains low because of its invasiveness and the need for extensive bowel preparation. Non-invasive fecal occult blood tests or fecal immunochemical tests are available; however, their sensitivity is relatively low. Syndecan-2 ( SDC2 ) is a stool-based DNA methylation marker used for early detection of CRC. Using the EarlyTect™-Colon Cancer test, the sensitivity and specificity of SDC2 methylation in stool DNA for detecting CRC were previously demonstrated to be greater than 90%. Therefore, a larger trial to validate its use for CRC screening in asymptomatic populations is now required. Methods All participants will collect their stool (at least 20 g) before undergoing screening colonoscopy. The samples will be sent to a central laboratory for analysis. Stool DNA will be isolated using a GT Stool DNA Extraction kit, according to the manufacturer’s protocol. Before performing the methylation test, stool DNA (2 µg per reaction) will be treated with bisulfite, according to manufacturer’s instructions. SDC2 and COL2A1 control reactions will be performed in a single tube. The SDC2 methylation test will be performed using an AB 7500 Fast Real-time PCR system. C T values will be calculated using the 7500 software accompanying the instrument. Results from the EarlyTect™-Colon Cancer test will be compared against those obtained from colonoscopy and any corresponding diagnostic histopathology from clinically significant biopsied or subsequently excised lesions. Based on these results, participants will be divided into three groups: CRC, polyp, and negative. The following clinical data will be recorded for the participants: sex, age, colonoscopy results, and clinical stage (for CRC cases). Discussion This trial investigates the clinical performance of a device that allows quantitative detection of a single DNA marker, SDC2 methylation, in human stool DNA in asymptomatic populations. The results of this trial are expected to be beneficial for CRC screening and may help make colonoscopy a selective procedure used only in populations with a high risk of CRC. Trial registration : This trial (NCT04304131) was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on March 11, 2020 and is available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04304131?cond=NCT04304131&draw=2&rank=1 .

Purpose of Review Colorectal cancer incidence has been rapidly rising in those under the age of 50 over the last 20 years. This paper will review the epidemiology, clinicopathologic, molecular features, proposed risk factors, and prevention/treatment approach for early onset CRC (EOCRC) patients. Recent Findings EOCRC appears to have a different spectrum of clinical, pathologic, and molecular presentation compared to CRC diagnosed in older individuals. EOCRCs are disproportionately located in the distal colon; these patients tend to present with symptoms, and there is a longer interval between symptoms and diagnosis. There may be a distinct molecular signature, including progression through the microsatellite and chromosomal stable (MACS) pathway and LINE-1 hypomethylation for a subset of EOCRCs. The majority of EOCRCs are sporadic without clear risk factors that would have made the patient eligible for earlier screening. Summary There is an acute need for educational efforts aimed at both providers and patients to raise awareness about CRC in the young. Improving adherence to screening in young patients eligible for screening and emphasizing early evaluation of symptoms are important steps to decreasing the burden of CRC in younger patients. Modeling and empiric data are needed to determine whether our current screening approach should be modified and whether causation and treatment options may be different in a molecular subset EOCRCs.

Non‐invasive detection of colorectal cancer with blood‐based markers is a critical clinical need. Here we describe a phased mass spectrometry‐based approach for the discovery, screening, and validation of circulating protein biomarkers with diagnostic value. Initially, we profiled human primary tumor tissue epithelia and characterized about 300 secreted and cell surface candidate glycoproteins. These candidates were then screened in patient systemic circulation to identify detectable candidates in blood plasma. An 88‐plex targeting method was established to systematically monitor these proteins in two large and independent cohorts of plasma samples, which generated quantitative clinical datasets at an unprecedented scale. The data were deployed to develop and evaluate a five‐protein biomarker signature for colorectal cancer detection. Synopsis A five‐protein biomarker signature discovered and validated by mass spectrometry can accurately predict colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis non‐invasively from a blood sample. Secreted protein biomarker candidates discovered in tumor tissue were detected in the circulation of healthy and CRC subjects. A five‐protein predictive diagnostic signature was developed in a cohort of 100 healthy and 100 CRC subjects, and independently validated in an external cohort of 67 healthy and 202 CRC subjects. The protein biomarker signature was found to be more effective for CRC subjects with larger tumors. Graphical Abstract A five‐protein biomarker signature discovered and validated by mass spectrometry can accurately predict colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis non‐invasively from a blood sample.

Background Colorectal cancer is a public health issue and was the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide in 2022. Early diagnosis can improve prognosis, making screening a central part of colorectal cancer management. Blood-based screening, diagnosis and follow-up of colorectal cancer patients are possible with the study of cell-free circulating tumor DNA. This study aimed to identify novel DNA methylation biomarkers of colorectal cancer that can be used for the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer. Methods A DNA methylation profile was established in the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database ( n  = 507) using bioinformatics analysis and subsequently confirmed using The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database ( n  = 348). The in silico profile was then validated on local tissue and cell-free DNA samples using methylation-specific digital PCR in colorectal cancer patients ( n  = 35) and healthy donors ( n  = 35). Results The DNA methylation of COL25A1 and METAP1D was predicted to be a colorectal cancer biomarker by bioinformatics analysis (ROC AUC = 1, 95% CI [0.999–1]). The two biomarkers were confirmed with tissue samples, and the combination of COL25A1 and METAP1D yielded 49% sensitivity and 100% specificity for cell-free DNA. Conclusion Bioinformatics analysis of public databases revealed COL25A1 and METAP1D DNA methylation as clinically applicable liquid biopsies DNA methylation biomarkers. The specificity implies an excellent positive predictive value for follow-up, and the high sensitivity and relative noninvasiveness of a blood-based test make these biomarkers compatible with colorectal cancer screening. However, the clinical impact of these biomarkers in colorectal cancer screening and follow-up needs to be established in further prospective studies.

BackgroundMismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) is a characteristic feature of cancers linked to Lynch syndrome. However, in most cases, it results from sporadic somatic events rather than hereditary factors. The term ‘Lynch-like syndrome’ (LLS) has been used to guide colorectal cancer surveillance for relatives of individuals with a dMMR tumour when somatic and germline genomic testing is uninformative. As the assessment of mismatch repair through immunohistochemistry and/or microsatellite instability is increasingly applied across various tumour types for treatment planning, dMMR is increasingly detected in tumours where suspicion of hereditary aetiology is low. Our objective was to establish current practices and develop national guidance for investigating, and managing relatives of, patients with cancers demonstrating unexplained dMMR.MethodsThis was achieved through a virtual consensus meeting involving key stakeholders from the UK, through premeeting surveys, structured discussions and in-meeting polling to formulate best practice guidance.ResultsWe identified variability in the availability of diagnostic technologies across specialist centres. It was agreed that equitable access to baseline testing is required, acknowledging the need for a pragmatic approach to investigating dMMR cancers not traditionally associated with Lynch syndrome. Factors such as family history, age, tumour type, protein loss pattern and extent of the investigation were deemed crucial in guiding family management. The term ‘unexplained dMMR’ was recommended over LLS.ConclusionDecisions regarding investigations and future cancer risk management in patients and relatives should be nuanced, considering factors like clinical suspicion of hereditary predisposition to allocate limited resources efficiently and avoid unnecessary investigations in low-suspicion families.

BackgroundThe selection of patients for genetic testing to rule out Lynch syndrome is currently based on fulfilment of at least one of the revised Bethesda criteria followed by mismatch repair (MMR) status analysis. A study was undertaken to compare the present approach with universal MMR study-based strategies to detect Lynch syndrome in a large series of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).Methods2093 patients with CRC from the EPICOLON I and II cohorts were included. Immunohistochemistry for MMR proteins and/or microsatellite instability (MSI) analysis was performed in tumour tissue. Germline MLH1 and MSH2 mutation analysis was performed in patients whose tumours showed loss of MLH1 or MSH2 staining, respectively. MSH6 genetic testing was done in patients whose tumours showed lack of MSH6 expression or a combined lack of MSH2 and MSH6 expression but did not have MSH2 mutations. PMS2 genetic testing was performed in patients showing isolated loss of PMS2 expression. In patients with MSI tumours and normal or not available MMR protein expression, all four MMR genes were studied.ResultsA total of 180 patients (8.6%) showed loss of expression of some of the MMR proteins and/or MSI. Four hundred and eighty-six patients (23.2%) met some of the revised Bethesda criteria. Of the 14 (0.7%) patients who had a MMR gene mutation, 12 fulfilled at least one of the revised Bethesda criteria and two (14.3%) did not.ConclusionsRoutine molecular screening of patients with CRC for Lynch syndrome using immunohistochemistry or MSI has better sensitivity for detecting mutation carriers than the Bethesda guidelines.

BackgroundPatients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) tumours without MLH1 methylation or germline MMR pathogenic variants (PV) were previously thought to have Lynch syndrome (LS). It is now appreciated that they can have double somatic (DS) MMR PVs. We explored the clinical characteristics between patients with DS tumours and LS in two population-based cohorts.MethodsWe included patients with CRC from Ohio 2013–2016 and Iceland 2000–2009. All had microsatellite instability testing and/or immunohistochemistry (IHC) of MMR proteins, and MLH1 methylation testing when indicated. Germline next-generation sequencing was performed for all with dMMR tumours; tumour sequencing followed for patients with unexplained dMMR. Clinical characteristics of DS patients and patients with LS were compared.ResultsOf the 232 and 51 patients with non-methylated dMMR tumours in the Ohio and Iceland cohorts, respectively, 57.8% (n=134) and 45.1% (n=23) had LS, 32.8% (n=76) and 31.4% (n=16) had DS PVs, 6% (n=14) and 9.8% (n=5) were unexplained and 4.3% (n=10) and 13.7% (n=7) had incorrect IHC. Age of diagnosis for DS patients was older than patients with LS (p=3.73×10−4) in the two cohorts. Patients with LS were more likely to meet Amsterdam II criteria (OR=15.81, p=8.47×10−6) and have multiple LS-associated tumours (OR=6.67, p=3.31×10−5). Absence of MLH1/PMS2 was predictive of DS PVs; isolated MSH6 and PMS2 absence was predictive of LS in both cohorts.ConclusionsIndividuals with LS are 15× more likely to meet Amsterdam II criteria and >5× more likely to have multiple cancers as compared with those with DS tumours. Furthermore, isolated loss of MSH6 or PMS2 protein predicts LS.

Purpose Lynch syndrome (LS) screening can significantly reduce cancer morbidity and mortality in mutation carriers. Our aim was to identify cost-effective LS screening programs that can be implemented in the “real world.” Methods We performed a systematic review of full economic evaluations of genetic screening for LS in different target populations; health outcomes were estimated in life-years gained or quality-adjusted life-years. Results Overall, 20 studies were included in the systematic review. Based on the study populations, we identified six categories of LS screening program: colorectal cancer (CRC)–based, endometrial cancer–based, general population–based, LS family registry–based, cascade testing–based, and genetics clinic–based screening programs. We performed an in-depth analysis of CRC-based LS programs, classifying them into three additional subcategories: universal, age-targeted, and selective. In five studies, universal programs based on immunohistochemistry, either alone or in combination with the BRAF test, were cost-effective compared with no screening, while in two studies age-targeted programs with a cutoff of 70 years were cost-effective when compared with age-targeted programs with lower age thresholds. Conclusion Universal or <70 years–age-targeted CRC-based LS screening programs are cost-effective and should be implemented in the “real world.”

It is believed that >95% of people with Lynch syndrome (LS) remain undiagnosed. Within the National Health Service (NHS) in England, formal guidelines issued in 2017 state that all colorectal cancers (CRC) should be tested for DNA Mismatch Repair deficiency (dMMR). We used a comprehensive population-level national dataset to analyse implementation of the agreed diagnostic pathway at a baseline point 2 years post-publication of official guidelines. Using real-world data collected and curated by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), we retrospectively followed up all people diagnosed with CRC in England in 2019. Nationwide laboratory diagnostic data incorporated somatic (tumour) testing for dMMR (via immunohistochemistry or microsatellite instability), somatic testing for MLH1 promoter methylation and BRAF status, and constitutional (germline) testing of MMR genes. Only 44% of CRCs were screened for dMMR; these figures varied over four-fold with respect to geography. Of those CRCs identified as dMMR, only 51% underwent subsequent diagnostic testing. Overall, only 1.3% of patients with colorectal cancer had a germline MMR genetic test performed; up to 37% of these tests occurred outside of NICE guidelines. The low rates of molecular diagnostic testing in CRC support the premise that Lynch syndrome is underdiagnosed, with significant attrition at all stages of the testing pathway. Applying our methodology to subsequent years’ data will allow ongoing monitoring and analysis of the impact of recent investment. If the diagnostic guidelines were fully implemented, we estimate that up to 700 additional people with LS could be identified each year.

Universal screening for Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer is recommended, and immunohistochemistry for the mismatch repair proteins is commonly used. To reduce cost, some screen using only MSH6 and PMS2, with reflex to the partner stain if either are absent (two-stain method). An expression pattern revealing absent MSH2 and intact MSH6 is not expected, but could result in failed Lynch syndrome detection. We analyzed tumors with absent MSH2 but any degree of MSH6 expression to determine if the two-stain method could miss MSH2 mutations. One-thousand seven-hundred thirty colorectal cancer patients from the Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative underwent tumor screening using microsatellite instability and immunohistochemistry. The two-stain method was used for 1235 cases; staining for all four proteins was completed for 495 cases. The proportion of positive cells and staining intensity were reviewed for MSH6, as well as MSH2 when available. Patients with mismatch repair deficiency underwent next-generation sequencing of germline DNA for mismatch repair genes. If negative, tumor next-generation sequencing was performed to assess for somatic mutations. Overall, thirty-three (1.9%, 33/1730) MSH2-absent cases were identified. Of those, fourteen had no MSH6 expression but eight (0.5%, 8/1730) had ambiguous and eleven (0.6%, 11/1730) had convincing MSH6 expression that could have been interpreted as intact. Germline next-generation sequencing identified MSH2 mutations in 11/14 cases with absence of both stains, 7/8 cases with ambiguous MSH6 expression, and 9/11 cases with convincing MSH6 expression. All remaining cases, except one, had double somatic mutations. The two-stain method fails to detect some patients with Lynch syndrome: (1) significant staining weaker than the control may be incorrectly interpreted as intact MSH6, or (2) Weak or focal/patchy MSH6 can be retained with the absence of MSH2. Accordingly, we recommend the four-stain method be used for optimal Lynch syndrome screening detection.