• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH, et al., editors. GeneReviews® [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993-2014.

Cover of GeneReviews®

GeneReviews® [Internet].

Show details

Lynch Syndrome

Synonyms: HNPCC, Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colon Cancer

, MS and , MD, PhD.

Author Information
, MS
University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute
Salt Lake City, Utah
, MD, PhD
USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center
Los Angeles, California

Initial Posting: ; Last Update: May 22, 2014.

Summary

Disease characteristics. Lynch syndrome, caused by a germline mutation (i.e. pathogenic variant in the germline) in a mismatch repair gene and associated with tumors exhibiting microsatellite instability (MSI), is characterized by an increased risk for colon cancer and cancers of the endometrium, ovary, stomach, small intestine, hepatobiliary tract, urinary tract, brain, and skin. In individuals with Lynch syndrome the following life time risks for cancer are seen: 52%-82% for colorectal cancer (mean age at diagnosis 44-61 years); 25%-60% for endometrial cancer in women (mean age at diagnosis 48-62 years); 6% to 13% for gastric cancer (mean age at diagnosis 56 years); and 4%-12% for ovarian cancer (mean age at diagnosis 42.5 years; approximately 30% are diagnosed before age 40 years). The risk for other Lynch syndrome-related cancers is lower, though substantially increased over general population rates.

Diagnosis/testing. The diagnosis of Lynch syndrome can be made on the basis of family history in those families meeting the Amsterdam criteria who have tumor microsatellite instability (MSI) or on the basis of molecular genetic testing in an individual or family with a germline mutation in one of four mismatch repair (MMR) genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2). MLH1 and MSH2 germline mutations account for approximately 90% of pathogenic variants in families with Lynch syndrome; MSH6 pathogenic variants in about 7%-10%; and PMS2 pathogenic variants in fewer than 5%. Germline deletions in EPCAM (not a mismatch repair gene) inactivate MSH2 in about 1% of individuals with Lynch syndrome.

Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome is ideally performed in a stepwise manner:

1.

Tumor testing

a.

Evaluation of tumor tissue for MSI through molecular MSI testing and/or immunohistochemistry (IHC) of the four MMR proteins. The presence of MSI in the tumor alone is not sufficient to diagnosis Lynch syndrome because 10%-15% of sporadic colorectal cancers exhibit MSI. IHC testing helps identify the MMR gene that most likely harbors a germline mutation.

b.

Molecular genetic testing of the tumor for MLH1 methylation and somatic BRAF mutation to help identify those tumors more likely to be sporadic than hereditary.

2.

Molecular genetic testing of the MMR genes to identify a germline mutation when findings are consistent with Lynch syndrome.

Management. Treatment of manifestations: For colon cancer, full colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis is recommended.

Prevention of primary manifestations: Prophylactic removal of the colon prior to the development of colon cancer is generally not recommended for individuals known to have Lynch syndrome because routine colonoscopy is an effective preventive measure. Prophylactic removal of the uterus and ovaries (prior to the development of cancer) can be considered after childbearing is completed.

Surveillance: Colonoscopy with removal of precancerous polyps every one to two years beginning between ages 20 and 25 years or two to five years before the earliest age of diagnosis in the family, whichever is earlier. The efficacy of surveillance for cancer of the endometrium, ovary, stomach, duodenum, and urinary tract is unknown.

Agents/circumstances to avoid: Cigarette smoking.

Evaluation of relatives at risk: Genetic testing for Lynch syndrome is generally not recommended for at-risk individuals younger than age 18 years; however, because it is recommended that screening begin ten years before the earliest age of cancer onset in a family, molecular genetic testing and screening colonoscopy may need to begin before age 18 years in some families.

Genetic counseling. Lynch syndrome is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. The majority of individuals diagnosed with Lynch syndrome have inherited the condition from a parent. However, because of incomplete penetrance, variable age of cancer development, cancer risk reduction as a result of screening or prophylactic surgery, or early death, not all individuals with a pathogenic variant in one of the genes associated with Lynch syndrome have a parent who had cancer. Each child of an individual with Lynch syndrome has a 50% chance of inheriting the pathogenic variant. Prenatal diagnosis for pregnancies at increased risk is possible if the pathogenic variant in the family is known. Requests for prenatal testing for typically adult-onset conditions which (like Lynch syndrome) have treatment available are not common.

Diagnosis

The diagnosis of Lynch syndrome can be made on the basis of family history in those families meeting the Amsterdam criteria who have tumor microsatellite instability (MSI) or on the basis molecular genetic testing in an individual or family with a germline mutation (i.e. pathogenic variant in the germline) in one of four mismatch repair (MMR) genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) or in EPCAM.

In 1990 the International Collaborative Group on Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer established the first clinical criteria, the Amsterdam criteria, to define hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) for the purpose of identifying families for research studies. These criteria were later modified (Amsterdam II Criteria) to include the other Lynch syndrome-related cancers (Table 1).

Table 1. Amsterdam and Amsterdam II Criteria for the Clinical Diagnosis of HNPCC

Amsterdam Criteria 1Amsterdam II Criteria 2
  • Three or more family members, one of whom is a first-degree 3 relative of the other two, with a confirmed diagnosis of colorectal cancer
  • Two successive affected generations
  • One or more colon cancers diagnosed before age 50 years
    Exclusion of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)

1. Vasen et al [1991]

2. Vasen et al [1999]

3. Parent, child, or sibling

4. Colorectal, endometrial, stomach, small intestinal, hepatobiliary, renal pelvic, or ureteral

Although the Amsterdam criteria can be a significant predictor of a germline mutation in an MMR gene in families that fulfill the criteria, the Amsterdam criteria nonetheless fail to identify a large portion of persons with a germline MMR gene mutation. Therefore, family history and the Amsterdam criteria cannot be relied on to identify all individuals with a germline mutation in one of the MMR genes.

Note: An individual found to have a deleterious germline mutation in one of the four MMR genes associated with Lynch syndrome is considered to have Lynch syndrome regardless of the extent of the family history.

Testing

Tumor Testing

Microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or immunohistochemistry (IHC) tests can be performed on tumor tissue in order to:

  • Establish the probability of Lynch syndrome;
    and
  • Identify which gene is most likely to have a causative germline mutation in a person with Lynch syndrome.

Plausible etiologies to explain the results of tumor testing and recommended additional testing based on the results of tumor testing are summarized in Table 2.

Tissue type

  • Although testing of tissue from colorectal carcinoma is clearly preferable, testing can be considered on an adenomatous polyp if cancer tissue is not available. However, abnormal MSI or IHC may be less reliably identified in Lynch syndrome-related polyps. Evaluation of 109 polyps from 69 individuals with a pathogenic variant found that only 79% of the adenomas demonstrated loss of MMR expression. Polyps with high-grade dysplasia are more likely to be concordant with pathogenic variant status than polyps with low-grade dysplasia [Walsh et al 2012].
  • Testing can also be used to screen endometrial cancers for defective MMR [Backes et al 2009].

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) of tumor tissue. IHC detects the presence or absence of the protein products expressed by mismatch repair genes. The MMR gene products function as dimers: MSH2 protein may complex with MSH6 or MSH3 protein, and MLH1 protein complexes with PMS2 or PMS1 protein. MSH6 and PMS2 proteins are unstable when not paired in a complex; thus, a germline mutation in MSH2 typically results in loss of expression of the proteins MSH2/MSH6 and a germline mutation in MLH1 results in loss of expression of the proteins MLH1/PMS2. However, germline mutations in MSH6 and PMS2 typically do not result in loss of MSH2 or MLH1 expression because these proteins are still present in other pairings [Bellizzi & Frankel 2009].

Advantages of IHC testing:

Limitations of IHC testing:

  • Variation in tissue fixation and other technical issues can result in weak or equivocal staining patterns [Shia 2008].
  • It is possible that some missense germline mutations will not result in the absence of a detectable protein product [Wahlberg et al 2002, Bellizzi & Frankel 2009].
  • It may be less reliable when performed on small tissue samples [Zhang 2008].

Microsatellite instability (MSI) testing of tumor tissue. Genes in the mismatch repair (MMR) pathway are responsible for identifying and repairing single nucleotide mismatches and insertion or deletion loops that occur as cells grow and divide [Gruber & Kohlmann 2003]. Defects in the genes involved with mismatch repair lead to an accumulation of somatic mutations in a cell, which may result in the cell becoming malignant.

Microsatellites are stretches of DNA with a repetitive sequence of nucleotides (e.g., AAAAA or CGCGCGCG) that are particularly susceptible to acquiring errors when the mismatch repair gene function is impaired. Cancers arising in cells with defective mismatch repair gene function exhibit an inconsistent number of microsatellite nucleotide repeats when compared to normal tissue, a finding referred to as "microsatellite instability." See Figure 1.

Figure 1

Figure

Figure 1. Microsatellite instability testing is used to identify tumors caused by defective mismatch repair by comparing the number of nucleotide repeats in a panel of microsatellite markers in normal tissue with the number from tumor tissue from the (more...)

MSI, assessed using a panel of microsatellite markers, is compared in tumor tissue and normal tissue. A 1997 NCI consensus meeting recommended testing a core panel of five markers: BAT25, BAT26, D2S123, D5S346, and D17S250 [Boland et al 1998]. This panel remains the most commonly used, and it includes two mononucleotide and three dinucleotide repeats. However, many labs are now using a variety of panels [Hegde et al 2014]. A tumor continues to be classified as follows [Boland et al 1998, Hegde et al 2014]:

  • MSI-high if two or more of the five markers of the core panel show instability or more than 30% of markers show instability in other marker panels.
  • MSI-low if one of the five markers in the core panel shows instability or fewer than 30% of markers show instability in other marker panels.
  • MSI-stable if 0 (or 0%) of the markers show instability in the core panel or other marker panels.

Note: Although some clinical laboratories use additional markers when performing MSI testing, there is a lack of consensus on the markers beyond the five designed by Boland et al [1998].

  • Colon tumors. When adequate tissue is available, studies of Lynch syndrome-associated adenomas suggest a slightly lower rate of MSI compared to invasive cancers, with approximately 80% of adenomas being MSI-high (see Table 3). Adenomas with high-grade dysplasia are more likely to exhibit MSI than early polyps [Iino et al 2000].
  • Endometrial cancers. Approximately 20%-30% of endometrial cancers exhibit MSI, and as with colon cancers the majority are the result of somatic MLH1 promoter methylation [Hampel et al 2006].

Advantages of MSI testing:

  • MSI testing is an effective method for determining which tumors arise from MMR deficiency. Studies have demonstrated that the sensitivity of MSI testing for identifying tumors that arise in individuals with a germline MMR gene mutation is 93% [Shia 2008].
  • MSI testing may be positive (i.e., MSI-high, identifying a tumor as arising from MMR deficiency) when the IHC studies have given a false negative result (e.g., because the appropriate antibody was not included in the test; the protein is present, but nonfunctional) [Shia 2008].
  • MSI testing requires very little tissue [Zhang 2008].
  • MSI testing is highly reproducible [Zhang 2008].

Limitations of MSI testing:

  • It may not be readily available at all centers because it requires microdissection and molecular analysis [Bellizzi & Frankel 2009].
  • In some tumors MSI cannot be detected because of technical challenges such as lack of DNA in extremely mucinous tumors [Hampel et al 2005].
  • A small portion of Lynch syndrome-related tumors will not show evidence of MMR deficiency [Shia 2008].
  • It does not reduce the cost of molecular testing because it does not help identify the gene that is most likely mutated.

BRAF testing

  • Colon tumors. BRAF pathogenic variants, the most common being NM_004333.4:c.1799T>A (p.Val600Glu, or V600E), occur in 15% of colorectal cancers. BRAF pathogenic variants are thought to be rare in Lynch syndrome-related cancers and, thus, in general the presence of a BRAF pathogenic variant rules out the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome [Bellizzi & Frankel 2009, Bouzourene et al 2010].
  • Endometrial cancers. BRAF pathogenic variants are not common in sporadic endometrial cancers; thus, BRAF testing is not helpful in distinguishing endometrial cancers that are sporadic from those that are Lynch syndrome-related [Kawaguchi et al 2009].

Methylation analysis of tumor tissue. The majority of MSI is caused by somatic methylation of the promoter region of MLH1 that silences gene expression in the tumor tissue; thus, the finding of MLH1 promoter methylation can often help eliminate the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome.

However, inactivation of the remaining functional allele by methylation can also be the “second hit” that causes homozygous inactivation of the gene, resulting in tumor development in an individual with a germline MLH1 mutation [Bellizzi & Frankel 2009, Niessen et al 2009]. Therefore, the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome cannot be eliminated by the presence of MLH1 promoter hypermethylation in an individual with early-onset colon cancer, strong family history, or other risk factors.

Somatic methylation of the functional MSH2 allele has been found to be the second hit in approximately 24% of MSH2-related cancers. However, methylation of MSH2 has not been found to be a cause of sporadic colorectal cancers [Nagasaka et al 2010].

Table 2. Summary of Tumor Tissue Test Results, Interpretation, and Additional Testing

Tumor Testing 1Plausible EtiologiesAdditional Testing 2
Immunohistochemistry (IHC)MSI BRAF V600E 3MLH1 Promoter Methylation
MLH1MSH2MSH6PMS2
++++MSS/ MSI-Low  Sporadic cancerNone 4
++++MSI-High  Germline mutation in any one of the known MMR genesConsider germline testing of MLH1 and MSH2 followed by MSH6 and possibly PMS2.
    MSI-High  Sporadic cancer or germline mutation in any one of the known MMR genesConsider IHC testing to guide germline testing.

If IHC not done, MLH1 and MSH2 germline testing followed by MSH6 and possibly PMS2
-++-   Sporadic cancer

Germline MLH1 mutation
Consider BRAF 3/ methylation studies;
MLH1 germline testing if no mutation detected in BRAF and/or hypermethylation, or testing not done
-++- Pos Sporadic cancer None 4
-++- Neg Pos Sporadic cancer

Rarely, MLH1 germline mutation or constitutional MLH1 epimutation
None, unless young onset or significant family history then consider MLH1 germline testing or if young onset consider evaluation for constitutional MLH1 epimutation
-++- Neg Neg Germline MLH1 mutationMLH1 germline testing
+--+Germline MSH2 mutation

Germline EPCAM mutation

Rarely, germline MSH6 mutation
MSH2 germline testing

If no pathogenic variant detected consider EPCAM testing (if not already done).

If no pathogenic variant detected in MSH2 or EPCAM (if not included with the original large deletion testing), consider MSH6 germline testing.
-+++Germline MLH1 mutationMLH1 germline testing
+++-Germline PMS2 mutation

Germline MLH1 mutation
PMS2 germline testing

If no pathogenic variant detected in PMS2, MLH1 germline testing
+-++Germline MSH2 mutationMSH2 germline testing
++-+Germline MSH6 mutation

Germline MSH2 mutation
MSH6 germline testing

If no pathogenic variant detected in MSH6, consider MSH2 germline testing.

NCCN [2013] (click Image guidelines.jpg for full text; registration required)

Empty cells indicate either that testing was not done or that results may not influence testing strategy.

MSI = microsatellite instability

MSS = MSI-stable

+ = normal staining of protein

- = absent staining of protein

Neg = negative

Pos = positive

1. Tumor testing strategies apply to colorectal and endometrial cancers. Limited data exist regarding the efficacy of tumor testing in other Lynch syndrome tumors.

2. For information on testing for germline mutations, see Molecular Genetic Testing and Table 3.

3. Testing is not appropriate for tumors other than colorectal cancer.

4. In the presence of strong family history (i.e., Amsterdam criteria are met), additional testing may be warranted in the proband or tumor testing in another affected family member considered because of the possibility that the original tumor selected for testing was a sporadic colorectal cancer.

Molecular Genetic Testing

Genes. Five genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, and EPCAM [formerly known as TACSTD1]) in which germline mutations disrupt the mismatch repair (MMR) pathway and cause Lynch syndrome have been identified (see Table 3).

Note: Although EPCAM is not an MMR gene, recurrent germline deletions of the 3' region result in silencing of the adjacent downstream MSH2 by hypermethylation [Niessen et al 2009, Goel et al 2011, Kuiper et al 2011].

Evidence for additional locus heterogeneity. There are a few case reports of germline MLH3, MSH3, EXO1, PMS1, or TGFBR2 mutations in some families with Lynch syndrome; however, the clinical significance, if any, of allelic variants in these genes in Lynch syndrome has not yet been determined [Lu et al 1998, Peltomaki 2003]. While these and other genes may play a role in the mismatch repair process, there continues to be no confirmed role for mutation testing of these genes as part of a Lynch syndrome evaluation [Thompson et al 2004, Ou et al 2009, Duraturo et al 2011]. A succinct discussion of the evidence for a possible role of these genes in Lynch syndrome can be found at www.omim.org:

The clinical utility of testing for germline mutations in these genes in individuals suspected of having Lynch syndrome is unknown.

Clinical testing

Table 3. Summary of Germline Molecular Genetic Testing Used in Lynch Syndrome

Gene 1 Proportion of Lynch Syndrome Attributed to Pathogenic Variants in This GeneTest Method
MLH150% 2, 3Sequence analysis 4
Deletion/duplication analysis 5, 6
MSH240% 2Sequence analysis 4
Deletion/duplication analysis 5, 6
MSH67%-10% 7Sequence analysis 4
Deletion/duplication analysis 5, 6
PMS2<5% 8Sequence analysis 4, 10
Deletion/duplication analysis 5, 10
EPCAM
(TACSTD1)
~1%-3% 9Sequence analysis 4
Deletion/duplication analysis 5, 6, 11

1. See Table A. Genes and Databases for chromosome locus and protein name. See Molecular Genetics for information on allelic variants.

2. Peltomaki [2003]

3. Constitutional inactivation of MLH1 by methylation, along with somatic loss of heterozygosity of the functional allele, has been reported to be a rare cause of Lynch syndrome. Such cases are not detectable by either sequence analysis or duplication/deletion analysis of MLH1 (see Molecular Genetics).

4. Sequence analysis detects variants that are benign, likely benign, of unknown significance, likely pathogenic, or pathogenic. Pathogenic variants may include small intragenic deletions/insertions and missense, nonsense, and splice site variants; typically, exonic or whole-gene deletions/duplications are not detected. For issues to consider in interpretation of sequence analysis results, click here.

5. Testing that identifies exonic or whole-gene deletions/duplications not detectable by sequence analysis of the coding and flanking intronic regions of genomic DNA. Included in the variety of methods that may be used are: quantitative PCR, long-range PCR, multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), and chromosomal microarray (CMA) that includes this gene/chromosome segment.

6. Large deletions and genetic rearrangements account for 20% of pathogenic variants in MSH2, 5% of pathogenic variants in MLH1, 20% of pathogenic variants in PMS2, and 7% of pathogenic variants in MSH6, and 100% of pathogenic variants in EPCAM [Wijnen et al 1998, Charbonnier et al 2000, Wagner et al 2003, Plaschke et al 2004, Senter et al 2008].

7. Miyaki et al [1997], Berends et al [2002], Peltomaki [2003]

8. Senter et al [2008]

9. Niessen et al [2009], Goel et al [2011], Kuiper et al [2011]

10. Due to the high level of homology between PMS2 and pseudogenes, testing and interpretation of findings in this gene is difficult. A laboratory that adheres to ACMG guidelines for analysis of PMS2 and that has expertise in testing this gene should be selected when a PMS2 pathogenic variant is suspected in a family [Hegde et al 2014].

11. Germline deletions of EPCAM result in silencing of the adjacent MSH2 allele by hypermethylation. The adjacent MSH2 allele itself is not mutated (see Molecular Genetic Pathogenesis).

Testing Strategy

To confirm/establish the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome in a proband. To view the Colorectal Cancer Screening testing strategy guidelines developed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), click Image guidelines.jpg (no-cost registration and login required). Testing is ideally performed in a stepwise manner.

I. Testing of Tumor Tissue (Table 2)

MSI and IHC allow for the screening of tumor tissue to help identify individuals who may have Lynch syndrome. These methods may be implemented with various strategies:

Approach 1. Screen all colorectal cancers with MSI and/or IHC testing [EGAPP Working Group 2009].

  • A 2005 population-based study of 1566 colorectal cancers reported that 25% of individuals found to have a germline mutation in an MMR gene did not meet the Amsterdam Criteria or Bethesda Guidelines, and therefore a broad-reaching strategy such as universal testing of all diagnosed individuals could be considered.
  • Studies have shown that this strategy is increasingly being adopted by academic medical centers and to a lesser extent community hospitals [Beamer et al 2012].
  • Because Lynch syndrome accounts for a similar proportion of endometrial cancer as colon cancer, universal screening programs are expanding to include routine analysis of newly diagnosed individuals with endometrial cancer as well [Resnick et al 2009, Moline et al 2013].
  • Success of such programs to identify individuals and families with Lynch syndrome largely depends on the systems in place for following up on abnormal results and ensuring follow through with appropriate genetic counseling and testing [Heald et al 2013].
  • The Lynch Syndrome Screening Network was established to help develop best practice approaches for universal screening and to collect long-term data on the outcomes of these programs.

Note: While a combined approach of IHC and MSI testing of tumor tissue is ideal, use of IHC testing alone may be more feasible for large-scale screening programs because it is more readily available than MSI testing and provides information about which MMR gene most likely harbors a germline mutation. For example, for tumors exhibiting loss of both MLH1 and PMS2 expression, reflex testing of tumor tissue for MLH1 promoter methylation and BRAF V600E variants can help distinguish sporadic tumors from those more likely to harbor a germline MLH1 mutation.

Approach 2. Target IHC and/or MSI testing of tumor tissue from individuals with colorectal cancer or other Lynch syndrome-related cancers and additional features that suggest the diagnosis, such as early age of onset or strong family history.

  • Research continues to identify factors that may help distinguish the subset of individuals with colorectal and endometrial cancer at greatest risk for Lynch syndrome in order to minimize the costs of screening programs.
  • The Bethesda Guidelines were established to help identify individuals who may have Lynch syndrome and who are candidates for MSI and/or IHC testing of tumor tissue [Umar et al 2004]. Although their estimated sensitivity in identifying individuals with Lynch syndrome is up to 94%, their specificity is only 25% [Syngal et al 2000].
  • Age of onset and pathologic features have also been used to predict which individuals most likely harbor an MMR pathogenic variant [Rabban et al 2014].

II. Molecular Genetic Testing (Table 3)

Approach 1. As recommended by the results of tumor testing (Table 2)

Approach 2. As per one of the following risk assessment models that help predict the likelihood of identifying a germline mutation in one of the Lynch syndrome associated genes

  • PREMM1,2, 6 Model is based on data from 4539 individuals undergoing genetic testing of MSH2, MLH1, and MSH6 through a commercial laboratory. This model incorporates information on the Lynch syndrome-related cancers (colon, endometrial, stomach, ovarian, small intestine, urinary tract/kidney, bile ducts, glioblastoma, sebaceous gland tumors, and pancreas) in the proband and in first and second-degree relatives, and age of onset. Data from MSI and IHC testing are not included. Based on genotype/phenotype data, this model provides specific estimates of the likelhood of detecting a pathogenic variant in each of the MMR genes. Using a 5% mutation probability as a standard for MMR testing, the model has an estimated sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 54% [Kastrinos et al 2011]. The model is also able to use family history to estimate the likelihood that a person who has not had cancer has a pathogenic variant in an MRR gene.
  • MMRpredict is based on data from a population-based cohort diagnosed with colorectal cancer before age 55 years who were tested for pathogenic variants in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6. Data from MSI and IHC testing and the presence of colorectal and/or endometrial cancer in first-degree relatives can be incorporated. This model can only be used in affected individuals; it is unclear how accurate the model is for tumors diagnosed in older individuals [Barnetson et al 2006].
  • MMRpro (see also CancerGene) incorporates information on colorectal and endometrial cancers in the proband and first- and second-degree relatives, age of onset, and results of IHC and MSI testing to estimate the likelihood of identifying a germline mutation in MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 in a family; uses mendelian modeling to determine the probably that a family member has inherited a germline mutation; and calculates the individual’s risk of developing colon and endometrial cancer.

    Pathogenic variant data have been obtained from clinic- and population-based data reported in the literature; cancer risk estimates are based on penetrance data from a meta-analysis of five large Lynch syndrome studies. Since this model does not incorporate information on most extracolonic cancers, it is unclear how accurately it can identify the gene most likely to be mutated [Chen et al 2006].

Approach 3. Foregoing MSI testing and proceeding directly to germline molecular genetic testing in families meeting the Amsterdam Criteria. This approach is becoming more cost effective as next-generation sequencing reduces the cost of testing all MMR genes and EPCAM. However, because there are substantial differences in cancer risk estimates between families with MMR-deficient colon cancer versus MMR-proficient cancers, tumor tissue is often still part of a comprehensive evaluation [Bapat et al 2009]. Direct genetic testing of the MMR genes can be considered in the following situations.

When no tumor tissue is available for tumor testing:

  • One strategy for molecular diagnosis of Lynch syndrome is sequential single-gene molecular genetic testing.
    • Molecular testing should begin with a family member diagnosed with a Lynch syndrome-related cancer.
    • Pursue molecular testing of all four MMR genes and EPCAM. Testing can be done in a stepwise manner beginning with the genes in which a pathogenic variant is most likely to be identified.
  • Another strategy is use of a multi-gene panel that evaluates all MRR genes simultaneously. Note: Colon cancer panels may include additional genes not associated with Lynch syndrome.
    • The use of a multi-gene panel may provide for efficient identification of pathogenic variants in situations when tumor testing cannot be done to help narrow down the gene involved.
  • If no germline mutation is identified in any one of the five genes tested, Lynch syndrome still cannot be ruled out because some pathogenic variants may be missed, or it is possible that the family member selected for testing had a sporadic (non-genetic) cancer. In this latter instance, molecular genetic testing of another relative with a Lynch syndrome-related cancer may result in detection of a causative germline mutation.
  • In the absence of information on the MSI status of the tumor, it is not possible to distinguish between Lynch syndrome and other causes of familial colorectal cancer.

When no tumor tissue or living affected relative is available for testing:

  • Molecular genetic testing to identify a germline pathogenic variant could be pursued in an unaffected family member.
  • The likelihood of an unaffected person having a pathogenic variant (if one is present in the family) depends on that individual's degree of relatedness to an affected family member (e.g., a first-degree relative has a 50% chance of having inherited a pathogenic variant).
  • A cost-benefit analysis suggests that testing unaffected individuals is worth pursuing in such instances because of the significant benefit for the family if a Lynch syndrome-causing germline mutation is identified [Dinh et al 2011].

Clinical Description

Natural History

Individuals with Lynch syndrome caused by a germline mutation (i.e. pathogenic variant in the germline) in a mismatch repair gene or associated with tumors exhibiting MSI are at increased risk for colon cancer and other cancers including cancers of the endometrium, ovary, stomach, small intestine, hepatobiliary tract, upper urinary tract, brain, and skin (Table 4).

Table 4. Cancer Risks in Individuals with Lynch Syndrome Age ≤70 Years Compared to the General Population

Cancer TypeGeneral Population RiskLynch Syndrome
(MLH1 and MSH2 heterozygotes)
RiskMean Age of Onset
Colon4.8%52%-82%44-61 years
Endometrium2.7%25%-60%48-62 years
Stomach<1%6%-13%56 years
Ovary1.4%4%-12%42.5 years
Hepatobiliary tract<1%1.4%-4%Not reported
Urinary tract<1%1%-4%~55 years
Small bowel<1%3%-6%49 years
Brain/central nervous system<1%1%-3%~50 years
Sebaceous neoplasms<1%1%-9%Not reported

Colon cancer. Initial studies based on high-risk kindreds meeting Amsterdam criteria have found up to an 82% lifetime risk for colon cancer, and a mean age of onset of 44 years. Two thirds of these cancers occur in the proximal colon [Lynch et al 1993, Lynch & Smyrk 1996, Aarnio et al 1999].

More recent studies of heterozygotes for an MLH1 and MSH2 pathogenic variant have resulted in lower risk estimates of 66%-69% for men and 43%-52% for women, and an average age of diagnosis of 61 years [Hampel et al 2005, Stoffel et al 2009].

Colon cancer risk estimates have also been lower for heterozygotes for an MSH6 and PMS2 pathogenic variant. Risks to male and female heterozygotes for an MSH6 pathogenic variant up to age 80 years have been found to be 44% and 20%, respectively. While substantially lower than the risk associated with MLH1 and MHS2 pathogenic variants, this still represents an eightfold increase in colon cancer risk [Baglietto et al 2010]. The risk to heterozygotes for a PMS2 pathogenic variant up to age 70 years was 15%-20% [Senter et al 2008].

Data on cancer risks for those with an EPCAM pathogenic variant is still limited, but Kempers et al [2011] reported on findings from 194 individuals with an EPCAM deletion. From this cohort they estimated a 75% (95% CI 65-86) cumulative incidence of colorectal cancer by age 70 years. The risk for colorectal cancer did not differ between those who had only a 3’ deletion of EPCAM and those harboring a deletion that encompassed EPCAM and MSH2.

When matched stage for stage, colon cancers in individuals with Lynch syndrome are associated with a better prognosis than sporadic colon cancers [Watson et al 1998], an unexpected finding because the poorly differentiated histology of Lynch syndrome-related colon cancers is typically associated with a poor prognosis. Histologic characteristics of Lynch syndrome-related colon cancers include: poor differentiation, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, mucin, and signet ring or cribiform histology.

Endometrial cancer. Women with Lynch syndrome have a 25%-60% lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, making this the second most common cancer in Lynch syndrome [Aarnio et al 1999, Vasen et al 2001, Hampel et al 2005, Stoffel et al 2008]. Studies based on high-risk families have found an average age of diagnosis of approximately 48 years; population-based studies have revealed a later age of diagnosis (62 years) [Vasen et al 1994, Hampel et al 2005].

While mutation of MSH6 is associated with a more moderately increased colon cancer risk, heterozygotes have a 44% risk for endometrial cancer, similar to the level of risk reported for MLH1 and MSH2 heterozygotes [Baglietto et al 2010]. Among women with Lynch syndrome who develop both colon cancer and endometrial cancer, approximately 50% present first with endometrial cancer [Watson et al 1994, Lu et al 2005]. The risk for subsequent endometrial cancer for women with Lynch syndrome presenting first with colon cancer has been estimated at 26% within ten years of the initial colon cancer diagnosis [Obermair et al 2010].

Kemper et al found a 12% (95% CI 0-27) cumulative risk for endometrial cancer by age 70 years. The risk for women with deletions affecting both EPCAM and MSH2 was similar to that reported for women with an MSH2 pathogenic variant [Kempers et al 2011].

Overall, Lynch syndrome accounts for approximately 2% of all endometrial cancers [Hampel et al 2006]. A survival advantage similar to that in Lynch syndrome-related colon cancer has been reported in Lynch syndrome-related endometrial cancers [Maxwell et al 2001].

Gastric cancer. Estimates for gastric cancer risk in heterozygotes for an MLH1 or an MSH2 pathogenic variant range from 6% to 13%. The risk is greatest in males with an MSH2 pathogenic variant [Watson et al 2008, Capelle et al 2010]. Higher risks have been reported in countries with other risk factors for gastric cancer such as high incidence of H pylori infection [Park et al 2000]. The mean age of diagnosis of gastric cancer is 56 years. Intestinal-type adenocarcinoma, the most commonly reported pathology of Lynch syndrome-related gastric cancers [Aarnio et al 1997], differs histologically from the diffuse gastric cancer that is most commonly seen in hereditary diffuse gastric cancer caused by pathogenic variants in CDH1 [Guilford et al 1999]. However, Capelle et al reported that up to 20% of Lynch syndrome-related gastric cancers may be the diffuse type [Capelle et al 2010].

Ovarian cancer. The risk for ovarian cancer varies by the MMR gene in which the germline mutation occurs. The risk to heterozygotes for an MLH1 pathogenic variant has been found to be 4%-6%, while MSH2 heterozygotes have an 8%-11% risk. The mean age of diagnosis of Lynch syndrome-associated ovarian cancers is 42.5 years; however, diagnosis at very young ages has been reported. Approximately 30% of Lynch syndrome-associated ovarian cancers are diagnosed before age 35 years [Watson et al 2008].

The distribution of pathology types is similar to that seen in sporadic ovarian cancers. Borderline ovarian tumors do not seem to be associated with Lynch syndrome [Watson et al 2001].

Other cancers. Other Lynch syndrome-related cancers that have characteristic features have been reported:

  • Urinary tract cancers. The urinary tract cancers most commonly associated with Lynch syndrome are transitional carcinomas of the ureter and renal pelvis.

    A recent study suggests that bladder cancer risk is likely also increased in Lynch syndrome. A study of a Dutch Lynch syndrome cohort demonstrated a relative risk for bladder cancer of 4.4 for males and 2.2 for females; the majority of tumor tissue available for MSI and/or IHC testing exhibited MSI and/or had loss of protein expression corresponding to the germline mutation [van der Post et al 2010].

    Another study of individuals with Lynch syndrome and a prior diagnosis of colorectal cancer also demonstrated an increased risk for bladder cancer (7.22, 95% CI=4.08-10.99) and other urinary tract cancers (kidney, renal pelvis, and ureter) (12.54, 95% CI 7.97-17.94) providing additional evidence that bladder cancer should be included in the Lynch syndrome cancer spectrum [Win et al 2013].

    Risk estimates for urinary tract cancers vary significantly based on gender and the mutated gene, with higher risks seen in males heterozygous for an MSH2 pathogenic variant. Women with an MLH1 pathogenic variant have an approximately 1% risk while men with an MSH2 pathogenic variant have been estimated to have up to a 27% risk [Watson et al 2008].
  • Small bowel cancer. The risk for small bowel cancer has been estimated at between 3% and 6% [Watson et al 2008]. The duodenum and jejunum are the most common sites for small bowel cancers, with approximately 50% in reach of upper endoscopy [Schulmann et al 2005]. The majority of small bowel cancers are adenocarcinomas [Rodriguez-Bigas et al 1998, Schulmann et al 2005].
  • Pancreatic cancer. A study by Kastrinos et al [2009] based on reported family history found an 8.6-fold increased risk up to age 70 years for pancreatic cancer [Kastrinos et al 2009]. A prospective study which followed 446 individuals with an MMR pathogenic variant and 1029 relatives for a median of five years found an increased risk for pancreatic cancer (SIR, 10.68; 95% CI 2.68-47.70), and no increased risk for individuals without a pathogenic variant [Win et al 2012]. However, other studies have not demonstrated an increased risk [Barrow et al 2009]. Lynch syndrome has been found to be a rare cause of familial pancreatic cancer [Gargiulo et al 2009].
  • Brain tumors. The risk for brain tumors is estimated at approximately 2% [Schulmann et al 2005]. However, Barrow et al [2009] estimated a 16-fold increased risk for persons with biallelic MSH2 mutations. The most common type of central nervous system tumor is glioblastoma [Hamilton et al 1995, Wimmer & Etzler 2008].
  • Sebaceous skin neoplasias described include: sebaceous adenomas, sebaceous epitheliomas, sebaceous carcinomas, and keratoacanthomas [Schwartz & Torre 1995, Misago & Narisawa 2000]. Sebaceous neoplasms associated with Lynch syndrome exhibit MSI [Entius et al 2000, Machin et al 2002]. The data on the frequency of sebaceous neoplasms in individuals with Lynch syndrome are limited. Studies have found that between 1% and 9% of individuals with a germline mutation in an MMR gene have a sebaceous neoplasm [Ponti et al 2006, South et al 2008].
  • Prostate cancer. Several studies have demonstrated an association with prostate cancer, with the increase in risk ranging from two- to nearly fivefold [Raymond et al 2013b, Haraldsodottir et al 2014, Ryan et al 2014]. Raymond et al [2013b] found that the risk for prostate cancer was increased for men with an MMR pathogenic variant prior to age 60 [Raymond et al 2013b], whereas an analysis by Haraldsdottir et al [2014] found earlier age of onset or a more aggressive phenotype in the prostate cancers occurring in individuals with an MMR pathogenic variant.
  • Breast cancer. The relationship between breast cancer and Lynch syndrome is unresolved. A systematic review evaluated 21 studies; 13 did not demonstrate an increased risk for breast cancer in individuals with Lynch syndrome and eight did show an increased risk [Win et al 2013]. To date, breast cancer risk has only been evaluated in one prospective study. Individuals with a pathogenic variant were found to have a standard incidence ratio for breast cancer of 3.95 (95% CI 1.59-8.13), and the median age of breast cancer diagnosis was 56 years. A study by Walsh et al [2010] determined that tissue from 51% of breast cancers in individuals with a pathogenic variant in an MMR gene exhibited loss of immunohistochemical staining for the protein corresponding to the gene in which a germline mutation occurs. Due to the high frequency of breast cancer in the general population, the presence of sporadic breast cancers complicates analysis of the association with Lynch syndrome.
  • Additional cancer risks. Several other cancer types have been reported to occur in individuals with Lynch syndrome. In some cases, MSI and/or IHC testing of tumor tissue demonstrated concordance between the extra-colonic cancer and the mutation status of the affected individual. While these types of findings suggest that the underlying presence of a pathogenic variant in an MMR gene contributed to the development of the cancer, data are not sufficient to demonstrate that the risk of developing these types of cancers is increased in individuals with Lynch syndrome.

    Several types of sarcomas have been reported in individuals with an MMR pathogenic variant, including fibrous histiocytomas, rhabdomyosarcomas, leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma [Sijmons et al 2000, den Bakker et al 2003, Nilbert et al 2009]. Nilbert et al [2009] determined that six of eight sarcomas in individuals with Lynch syndrome exhibited defective MMR, suggesting that sarcomas may also be part of the spectrum of Lynch syndrome tumors. Due to the rarity of sarcomas it may be difficult to determine the magnitude of risk associated with Lynch syndrome.

    Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) has also been reported in families with Lynch syndrome. The most extensive study of this association performed through a hereditary cancer clinic at the University of Michigan found two of 114 (1.7%) individuals presenting with ACC had a family history consistent with Lynch syndrome and had an MMR pathogenic variant identified. This association was further evaluated by case review of 135 individuals with pathogenic MMR variants, which identified two (1.4%) individuals who also had ACC [Raymond et al 2013a].

Lynch syndrome variants

  • Muir-Torre syndrome is defined by the combination of sebaceous neoplasms of the skin and one or more internal malignancies, commonly those seen in Lynch syndrome. The types of sebaceous skin neoplasias described include: sebaceous adenomas, sebaceous epitheliomas, sebaceous carcinomas, and keratoacanthomas [Schwartz & Torre 1995, Misago & Narisawa 2000].
  • Turcot syndrome is defined as colorectal cancer or colorectal adenomas in addition to tumors of the central nervous system. The clinical presentation varies from numerous colonic polyps to a single polyp or colorectal cancer.

    Turcot syndrome is usually caused either by a pathogenic variant of APC (see APC-Associated Polyposis Conditions) or by a pathogenic variant in one of the mismatch repair genes associated with Lynch syndrome [Hamilton et al 1995]. Individuals with an APC pathogenic variant typically have more polyps; however, a significant overlap in polyp number occurs between individuals with Turcot syndrome caused by an APC pathogenic variant and those with Turcot syndrome caused by a pathogenic variant in a mismatch repair gene [Hamilton et al 1995]. The pathology of the CNS tumor can help distinguish between the underlying genetic causes: APC pathogenic variants are more commonly associated with medulloblastoma; mismatch repair gene pathogenic variants are more commonly associated with glioblastoma.

    The brain tumors associated with mutations in a mismatch repair gene exhibit MSI [Hamilton et al 1995, Suzui et al 1998].
  • Homozygous mismatch repair mutations. Rare individuals who are homozygous for pathogenic variants in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 have been reported. Affected individuals often have onset of colon or small bowel cancer prior to the second decade of life. One third of children with biallelic pathogenic variants in an MMR gene have been reported to have more than ten polyps. Hematologic cancer, brain tumors, and café-au-lait macules have also been reported [Wimmer & Etzler 2008, Durno et al 2010, Bakry et al 2014].

Genotype-Phenotype Correlations

Cancer risks vary among the four MMR genes.

Heterozygosity for an MSH2 pathogenic variant is associated with the greatest risk for extracolonic cancers; risk for extracolonic cancers (other than endometrial cancer) is low for heterozygotes with an MSH6, PMS2, or EPCAM pathogenic variant.

MSH2 pathogenic variants have been reported more commonly than a pathogenic variant in the other three MMR genes in individuals with the Muir-Torre variant of Lynch syndrome [South et al 2008].

Heterozygosity for a pathogenic variant in MSH6 is associated with MSI-low tumors. The cancers in families with an MSH6 pathogenic variant may be later in onset and more distally located than the cancers in families with Lynch syndrome resulting from a pathogenic variant in one of the other MMR genes; endometrial cancer is commonly observed in women with an MSH6 pathogenic variant [Wu et al 1999, Berends et al 2002]. Slightly lower risks for colon cancer and higher risks for endometrial cancer have been reported in families with an MSH6 pathogenic variant than in families with an MLH1 or MSH2 pathogenic variant [Berends et al 2002, Baglietto et al 2010].

Heterozygosity for a PMS2 pathogenic variant is associated with the lowest risk (25%-32% risk) for any Lynch syndrome-related cancer [Senter et al 2008].

Deletions of EPCAM that result in epigenetic silencing of MSH2 are associated with a significantly increased risk for colon cancer. Studies have shown high levels of EPCAM expression in colonic stem cells; however, because EPCAM is not expressed at high levels in all tissues, the effect of EPCAM on extracolonic cancer risks is unclear. Kempers et al [2011] reported a low risk for endometrial cancer in those with deletions of EPCAM compared to mutation of an MMR gene. The risk for extra-colonic cancers also is dependent on the extent of the deletion. 3’ EPCAM deletions have been shown to confer a lower risk for extra-colonic cancers, whereas deletions that extend into MSH2 confer extra-colonic cancer risks similar to intragenic MSH2 pathogenic variants [Tutlewska et al 2013].

Penetrance

Penetrance of colon cancer associated with mutation of an MMR gene or EPCAM is less than 100% (see Table 4). Therefore, some individuals with a cancer-predisposing pathogenic variant in one of the MMR genes never develop colon cancer.

Anticipation

One study reporting anticipation in Lynch syndrome (i.e., offspring having a younger age of onset than the parents) [Westphalen et al 2005] has not been reproduced. Another study in which offspring had a younger age of onset than their parents determined that this observation was caused by birth cohort bias [Tsai et al 1997].

Nomenclature

Lynch syndrome has also been called hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). Clinicians and researchers working in the area of hereditary colon cancer have suggested returning to the use of the original name, Lynch syndrome, to specify individuals and families with defective MMR and to distinguish them from other forms of familial colon cancer [Bellizzi & Frankel 2009, Weissman et al 2011].

Prevalence

Lynch syndrome accounts for approximately 1%-3% of colon cancers, and 0.8%-1.4% of endometrial cancers [Kowalski et al 1997, Chadwick et al 2001, Cunningham et al 2001].

The population prevalence of Lynch syndrome can be estimated at 1:440 [Chen et al 2006].

Differential Diagnosis

Familial colorectal cancer. Evaluation of MSI status of tumor tissue is important for differentiating Lynch syndrome from familial colorectal cancer. In studies of families with strong histories of colorectal cancer whose tumors are MSI stable, no increased risk for the extracolonic cancers commonly associated with a germline mutation (pathogenic variant in the germline) in a mismatch repair gene was identified. The risk for colorectal cancer also appears to be lower in families with MSI-stable tumors [Abdel-Rahman et al 2005, Lindor et al 2005, Mueller-Koch et al 2005]. Many candidate genes, low-penetrance alleles, and environmental risk factors have been evaluated with respect to their contributions to familial colorectal cancer.

Attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis (AFAP). This milder presentation of FAP, also caused by pathogenic variants in APC, is characterized by fewer polyps and later age of onset than classic FAP. In AFAP, typically fewer than 100 polyps are observed. Polyps of the gastric fundus and duodenum also occur; however, many of the extracolonic manifestations commonly observed in FAP (e.g., epidermal cysts, dental abnormalities, congenital hypertrophy of retinal pigmented epithelium, desmoid tumors) may be absent in AFAP. Polyps and colon cancers associated with AFAP do not usually exhibit MSI. AFAP is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner.

The APC p.Ile1307Lys pathogenic variant. This missense mutation is not associated with the classic FAP phenotype; however, individuals with the p.Ile1307Lys pathogenic variant in APC are at an approximately twofold increased risk for colon cancer. The pathogenic variant is found in approximately 6% of individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry [Laken et al 1997]. See APC-Associated Polyposis Conditions for information on this variant.

MUTYH-associated polyposis. Pathogenic variants in MUTYH (MYH) have been described in individuals with multiple adenomatous polyps. Pathogenic variants in MUTYH have been identified in: (1) approximately 30% of individuals with 15-100 polyps; (2) a small portion of individuals with a classic FAP phenotype who have no identifiable APC pathogenic variant; and (3) individuals with a family history of colon cancer in the absence of multiple polyps [Jo et al 2005]. Inheritance is autosomal recessive [Sieber et al 2003].

Hamartomatous polyp syndromes. Several conditions associated with an increased risk for hamartomatous polyps and colon cancer can usually be distinguished by their extracolonic manifestations as well as hamartomatous rather than adenomatous pathology:

Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC). The gastric cancers, caused by pathogenic variant of CDH1, are typically adenocarcinomas.

BRCA1/BRCA2 hereditary breast/ovarian syndrome should be considered when evaluating an individual with a family history of cancer that includes ovarian cancer.

Note to clinicians: For a patient-specific ‘simultaneous consult’ related to this disorder, go to Image SimulConsult.jpg, an interactive diagnostic decision support software tool that provides differential diagnoses based on patient findings (registration or institutional access required).

Management

Evaluations Following Initial Diagnosis

To establish the extent of disease and needs in an individual diagnosed with Lynch syndrome, the evaluations summarized in Surveillance are recommended.

Treatment of Manifestations

Management of colon cancer in a person with Lynch syndrome. If colon cancer is detected, full colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis is recommended rather than a segmental/partial colonic resection because of the high risk for metachronous cancers [Lynch et al 1988, Aarnio et al 1995, Church & Simmang 2003]. A study of 296 individuals (253 with partial resection, 43 with colectomy anastomosis) from families meeting Amsterdam Criteria found that with a median follow up of 104 months, 22% of affected individuals treated with a partial resection developed a high-risk adenoma and 25% developed a second primary colon cancer, while only 11% and 8% of affected individuals developed adenomas and colon cancers respectively [Kalady et al 2010]. Note: Because the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome is often not considered until after treatment of an initial cancer, many individuals diagnosed with Lynch syndrome have previously had their cancer treated with a limited colonic resection.

Although timing may be difficult, evaluating the tumor biopsy specimen by MSI and IHC (and, if indicated, the MHL1 promoter methylation status) may help determine the optimal surgical approach. A study suggests that persons with colon cancer are open to being approached about genetic testing at the time of their diagnosis [Porteous et al 2003].

The other tumors seen in Lynch syndrome are managed as in the general population.

Prevention of Primary Manifestations

Prophylactic removal of the uterus and ovaries (prior to the development of cancer) can be considered after childbearing is completed.

Because routine colonoscopy is an effective preventive measure for colon cancer, prophylactic colectomy (removal of the colon prior to the development of cancer) is generally not recommended for individuals with Lynch syndrome.

Surveillance

Colon cancer. Regular colonoscopy with removal of precancerous polyps reduces the incidence of colon cancer in individuals with Lynch syndrome. A 2009 study of a Finish cohort with high compliance with screening found no increase in mortality for individuals with Lynch syndrome over their mutation-negative relatives, indicating that annual colonoscopy could help with the prevention and detection of colon cancer [Järvinen et al 2009]. In this study four individuals were diagnosed with colon cancer and lymph node metastases: one was diagnosed during baseline colonoscopy; the other three were diagnosed more than two years after their last colonoscopy. Therefore, the current recommendation is colonoscopy every one to two years beginning between ages 20 and 25 years or two to five years before the earliest diagnosis in the family, whichever is earlier [Järvinen et al 2009, Engel et al 2010, NCCN 2013].

In MSH6 and PMS2 heterozygotes the risk for colon cancer is lower; thus colonoscopy screening may be delayed until age 30 years [Senter et al 2008, Baglietto et al 2010].

Note: Colonoscopy is recommended rather than flexible sigmoidoscopy because of the predominance of proximal colon cancers in Lynch syndrome [Lynch & Smyrk 1996].

Endometrial cancer. Endometrial cancer surveillance is less well established than that for colon cancer.

Because many endometrial cancers can be diagnosed at early stages on the basis of symptoms, women should be educated about the signs of endometrial cancers.

Currently the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) does not recommend any specific screening for endometrial or ovarian cancer [NCCN 2013].

Studies on the effectiveness of transvaginal ultrasound examination and endometrial biopsy have had conflicting results. Further studies are needed to determine if the combination of transvaginal ultrasound examination and endometrial biopsy detect endometrial cancers at an early age.

  • In a study of the use of transvaginal ultrasound examination to screen for endometrial cancer, no cancers were detected; however, two cancers were detected on the basis of symptoms manifest during the course of the study [Dove-Edwin et al 2002].
  • A report from a Finnish cohort found that endometrial sampling and transvaginal ultrasound every two to three years resulted in the diagnosis of early stage cancers. However, because endometrial cancer often presents with symptoms at an early stage, it was not clear that the screening improved detection [Järvinen et al 2009].

Ovarian cancer. No specific ovarian cancer screening trials have been conducted in women with Lynch syndrome. Of note, screening for ovarian cancer using CA-125 blood tests and transvaginal ultrasound examination has not been effective in other high-risk populations such as women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 pathogenic variant [Evans et al 2009].

Gastric and duodenal cancers. Upper endoscopy surveillance can be used to screen for cancers of the stomach and duodenum. Currently the NCCN recommends beginning upper endoscopy with a side-viewing scope and extended duodenoscopy between ages 30 and 35 years and repeating them every three to five years depending on the findings. Those with evidence of chronic inflammation, atrophic gastropathy, and/or intestinal metaplasia would be candidates for more frequent evaluation. Note: Biopsies should be evaluated for H pylori infections so that appropriate treatment can be given as needed [NCCN 2013].

Data regarding the effectiveness of upper endoscopy examination for the early detection of gastric cancer in Lynch syndrome are limited.

  • One study suggested no benefit from this screening for gastric cancer because of the lack of identifiable precursor lesions [Renkonen-Sinisalo et al 2002].
  • A study looking at gastric cancer risk in a Dutch study suggested that the level of risk is sufficient to warrant screening; however, since 87% of the cancers occurred after age 45 years, it may be most cost effective to initiate screening at age 45 years [Capelle et al 2010].
  • Schulmann et al [2005] found that approximately 50% of the small bowel cancers in a cohort with Lynch syndrome were located in the duodenum, suggesting that upper endoscopy may be useful for screening. However, no trials to determine the efficacy of upper endoscopy for screening for duodenal cancers have been conducted.

Distal small bowel. At this time data are limited regarding screening for cancer development in the distal small bowel. Capsule endoscopy and small bowel enterography are available for evaluating the small bowel, but at this time there is no recommendation for routine use of these approaches for small bowel screening, although they may be helpful for evaluating symptomatic individuals.

Urinary tract. NCCN recommends consideration of annual urine analysis beginning between age 25 and 30 years [NCCN 2013].

Other cancers. At this time, no specific screening recommendations for other Lynch syndrome associated cancers exist. Affected individuals should be encouraged to follow other general population screening guidelines and to seek prompt medical attention for changes in health or persistent symptoms.

Agents/Circumstances to Avoid

Cigarette smoking increases the risk for colorectal cancer in Lynch syndrome [Watson et al 2004, Pande et al 2010].

Evaluation of Relatives at Risk

Early recognition of cancers associated with Lynch syndrome may allow for timely intervention and improved final outcome; thus, surveillance of asymptomatic at-risk relatives for early manifestations is appropriate.

When an MMR pathogenic variant has been identified in a family with Lynch syndrome, molecular genetic testing for the pathogenic variant should be offered to all first-degree relatives (parents, sibs, and children).

  • The sibs should be considered at risk even if the parents have not had cancer because most Lynch syndrome results from an inherited (not de novo) mutation.
  • If clinical history and family history cannot identify the parent from whom the proband inherited the MMR gene pathogenic variant, molecular genetic testing for the pathogenic variant should be offered to both parents to determine which has the MMR gene mutation.

In general, molecular genetic testing for Lynch syndrome is not recommended for at-risk individuals younger than age 18 years. However, because cancer has been diagnosed in individuals with Lynch syndrome at very young ages [Huang et al 2001], it is recommended that screening begin ten years before the earliest age of onset in the family. In such instances, it is appropriate to offer molecular genetic testing to children younger than age 18 years prior to initiating cancer screening.

See Genetic Counseling for issues related to testing of at-risk relatives for genetic counseling purposes.

Pregnancy Management

Ideally cancer screening exams would be planned around a pregnancy. An affected woman would be encouraged to be current on her cancer screening before attempting to become pregnant. If an affected woman is diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy, she should be counseled about cancer treatment options and their potential implications for the fetus.

Therapies Under Investigation

Chromoendoscopy and intensive colonoscopy. A 2008 study compared the effectiveness of chromoendoscopy and intensive colonoscopy inspection in early detection of polyps in persons with Lynch syndrome. Following standard colonoscopy, study participants were randomized to receive a second colonoscopy with chromoendoscopy or a second colonoscopy with careful inspection. This study found that although polyps are frequently missed during standard colonoscopy, no difference was observed between the number of additional polyps detected by chromoendoscopy and by the careful second-look colonoscopy [Stoffel et al 2008]. Further studies are needed to determine if novel colonoscopy techniques confer additional benefit for the screening of persons with Lynch syndrome.

Chemoprevention research studies

  • A four-arm trial comparing placebo versus aspirin and placebo versus resistant starch was conducted among 1071 individuals with Lynch syndrome. No effect on the risk for colorectal neoplasia was seen in either the aspirin or resistant starch intervention group [Burn et al 2008]. However, when this cohort was followed for ten years, the group receiving aspirin did show a 63% reduction in colon cancer incidence [Burt 2012]. Resistant starch was not found to have an impact on colon cancer risk [Mathers et al 2012].
  • Whereas oral contraceptives reduce the risk for endometrial and ovarian cancer in women who are at general population risk, it is unknown if they confer the same benefit in women with Lynch syndrome.

Search ClinicalTrials.gov for access to information on clinical studies for a wide range of diseases and conditions.

Genetic Counseling

Genetic counseling is the process of providing individuals and families with information on the nature, inheritance, and implications of genetic disorders to help them make informed medical and personal decisions. The following section deals with genetic risk assessment and the use of family history and genetic testing to clarify genetic status for family members. This section is not meant to address all personal, cultural, or ethical issues that individuals may face or to substitute for consultation with a genetics professional. —ED.

Mode of Inheritance

Lynch syndrome is inherited in an autosomal dominant manner.

Risk to Family Members

Parents of a proband

  • The majority of individuals diagnosed with Lynch syndrome have inherited the pathogenic variant from a parent. However, because of incomplete penetrance, variable age of cancer development, cancer risk reduction resulting from screening or prophylactic surgery, or early death, not all individuals with mutation of a Lynch syndrome-causing MMR gene have a parent who had cancer.
  • If clinical and family history cannot identify the parent from whom the proband inherited the MMR pathogenic variant, molecular genetic testing should be offered to both parents to determine which one has the pathogenic variant identified in the proband.
  • The precise new mutation rate for Lynch syndrome is unknown but estimated to be extremely low [Bisgaard & Bernstein 2003].

Sibs of a proband

  • Sibs of a proband are at a 50% risk of inheriting the pathogenic variant.
  • Molecular genetic testing for the pathogenic variant identified in the family should be offered to all sibs.
  • The sibs should still be considered at risk even if the parents have not had cancer because most Lynch syndrome results from an inherited, not a de novo, mutation.

Offspring of a proband. Each child of an individual with Lynch syndrome has a 50% chance of inheriting the pathogenic variant.

Other family members of a proband. The risk to other family members depends on their relationship to the proband. Family history or molecular genetic testing can help determine whether maternal or paternal relatives are at risk. Offspring of family members found to have pathogenic variants or diagnosed with Lynch syndrome-related cancers can be assumed to be at 50% risk. For branches of the family in which the at-risk person died without developing a cancer, Bayesian analysis can be used to help calculate the risk to the offspring.

Related Genetic Counseling Issues

See Management, Evaluation of Relatives at Risk for information on evaluating at-risk relatives for the purpose of early diagnosis and treatment.

Specific risk issues. Several factors can hinder the diagnosis of Lynch syndrome based on family history. Screening and removal of precancerous polyps and prophylactic surgery may prevent colon or endometrial cancer in some at-risk relatives; some who died young from other causes may never have developed cancer.

Considerations in families with apparent de novo mutation. When neither parent of a proband with Lynch syndrome has the pathogenic variant or clinical evidence of Lynch syndrome, it is possible that the proband has a de novo mutation. However, de novo mutation in an MMR gene is thought to be rare and other possible non-medical explanations including alternate paternity or maternity (e.g., with assisted reproduction) or undisclosed adoption could also be explored [Bisgaard & Bernstein 2003].

Family planning

  • The optimal time for determination of genetic risk and discussion of the availability of prenatal testing is before pregnancy.
  • It is appropriate to offer genetic counseling (including discussion of potential risks to offspring and reproductive options) to young adults who are affected or at risk.

Genetic cancer risk assessment and counseling. For a comprehensive description of the medical, psychosocial, and ethical ramifications of identifying at-risk individuals through cancer risk assessment with or without molecular genetic testing, see Elements of Cancer Genetics Risk Assessment and Counseling (part of PDQ®, National Cancer Institute).

Testing of at-risk asymptomatic adults for Lynch syndrome is possible using the techniques described in Molecular Genetic Testing. Such testing is not useful in predicting whether symptoms will occur, or if they do, what the age of onset, severity and type of symptoms, or rate of disease progression will be. When testing at-risk individuals for Lynch syndrome, an affected family member should be tested first to confirm the molecular diagnosis in the family.

Genetic counseling is recommended prior to making decisions about genetic testing. Brain et al [2005] suggest that a single educational session may be adequate for genetic counseling for asymptomatic adults who are at risk for treatable conditions. However, preparatory information may be helpful in encouraging individuals to reflect on issues not previously considered. Genetic counseling includes discussion of the clinical and psychosocial implications of genetic testing for the individual and for family members. Studies assessing psychological adjustment following genetic testing have not found that learning that one has a Lynch syndrome pathogenic variant is associated with adverse psychological outcomes or clinically significant increases in distress. However, subgroups of individuals with Lynch syndrome, such as those with high levels of pre-test distress, poor quality of life, or low levels of social support, are at greater risk of experiencing psychological morbidity [Vernon et al 1997, Dudok de Wit et al 1998, Gritz et al 1999].

Molecular genetic testing of asymptomatic individuals younger than age 18 years. In general, genetic testing for Lynch syndrome is not recommended for at-risk individuals younger than age 18 years. Guidelines established jointly by the American College of Medical Genetics and the American Society of Human Genetics state that predictive genetic testing should be performed in individuals younger than age 18 years only if it will affect their medical management. It is recommended that the decision to test be postponed until an individual reaches adulthood and can make an independent decision because management for cancer risk associated with Lynch syndrome is not recommended to begin until age 20 years. Since there are rare reported cases of individuals with Lynch syndrome diagnosed with cancer at very young ages [Huang et al 2001], it is recommended that screening begin ten years before the earliest age of onset in the family. In some families, individuals may need to begin screening before age 18 years. See also the National Society of Genetic Counselors position statement on genetic testing of minors for adult-onset conditions.

DNA banking is the storage of DNA (typically extracted from white blood cells) for possible future use. Because it is likely that testing methodology and our understanding of genes, allelic variants, and diseases will improve in the future, consideration should be given to banking DNA of affected individuals.

Prenatal Testing

Prenatal diagnosis for pregnancies at increased risk for Lynch syndrome is possible by analysis of DNA extracted from fetal cells obtained by amniocentesis usually performed at approximately 15 to 18 weeks' gestation or chorionic villus sampling (CVS) at approximately ten to 12 weeks' gestation. The disease-causing allele of an affected family member must be identified before prenatal testing can be performed.

Note: Gestational age is expressed as menstrual weeks calculated either from the first day of the last normal menstrual period or by ultrasound measurements.

Requests for prenatal testing for typically adult-onset conditions which (like Lynch syndrome) have treatment available are not common. Differences in perspective may exist among medical professionals and within families regarding the use of prenatal testing, particularly if the testing is being considered for the purpose of pregnancy termination rather than early diagnosis. Although most centers would consider decisions about prenatal testing to be the choice of the parents, discussion of these issues is appropriate.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) may be an option for some families in which the pathogenic variant has been identified.

Resources

GeneReviews staff has selected the following disease-specific and/or umbrella support organizations and/or registries for the benefit of individuals with this disorder and their families. GeneReviews is not responsible for the information provided by other organizations. For information on selection criteria, click here.

  • Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Colorectal Cancer (CGA)
  • Lynch Syndrome International
    P.O. Box 5456
    Vacaville CA 95688
    Phone: 707-689-5089
    Email: info@lynchcancers.com
  • National Cancer Institute (NCI)
    6116 Executive Boulevard
    Suite 300
    Bethesda MD 20892-8322
    Phone: 800-422-6237 (toll-free)
    Email: cancergovstaff@mail.nih.gov
  • American Cancer Society (ACS)
    1599 Clifton Road Northeast
    Atlanta GA 30329-4251
    Phone: 800-227-2345 (toll-free 24/7); 866-228-4327 (toll-free 24/7 TTY)
  • C3: Colorectal Cancer Coalition
    1414 Prince Street
    Suite 204
    Alexandria VA 22314
    Phone: 877-427-2111 (toll-free); 703-548-1225
    Fax: 202-315-3871
    Email: info@fightcolorectalcancer.org
  • Colon Cancer Alliance (CCA)
    1200 G Street Northwest
    Suite 800
    Washington DC 20005
    Phone: 877-422-2030 (Toll-free Helpline); 202-434-8980
    Fax: 866-304-9075 (toll-free)

Molecular Genetics

Information in the Molecular Genetics and OMIM tables may differ from that elsewhere in the GeneReview: tables may contain more recent information. —ED.

Table B. OMIM Entries for Lynch Syndrome (View All in OMIM)

114500COLORECTAL CANCER; CRC
120435LYNCH SYNDROME I
120436MutL, E. COLI, HOMOLOG OF, 1; MLH1
158320MUIR-TORRE SYNDROME; MRTES
185535EPITHELIAL CELLULAR ADHESION MOLECULE; EPCAM
276300MISMATCH REPAIR CANCER SYNDROME; MMRCS
600259POSTMEIOTIC SEGREGATION INCREASED, S. CEREVISIAE, 2; PMS2
600678MutS, E. COLI, HOMOLOG OF, 6; MSH6
609309MutS, E. COLI, HOMOLOG OF, 2; MSH2
609310COLORECTAL CANCER, HEREDITARY NONPOLYPOSIS, TYPE 2; HNPCC2
613244COLORECTAL CANCER, HEREDITARY NONPOLYPOSIS, TYPE 8; HNPCC8

Molecular Genetic Pathogenesis

Lynch syndrome is caused by pathogenic variants in genes involved with the mismatch repair (MMR) pathway. This pathway functions to identify and remove single nucleotide mismatches or insertions and deletion loops. Pathogenic variants in four of the MMR genes can cause Lynch syndrome [Peltomaki 2003]. The functions of the mismatch repair genes can be disrupted by missense mutations, truncating mutations, splice site mutations, large deletions, or genomic rearrangements. In addition, germline deletion within EPCAM, which is not an MMR gene, can disrupt the MMR pathway by inactivating the adjacent MMR gene MSH2, even though MSH2 itself has not been mutated.

Genetic modifiers of cancer risk in Lynch syndrome have been reported:

  • Zecevic et al [2006] found that shorter IGF1-CA repeats are associated with an increased risk (HR=2.36; 95% CI=1.28 to 4.36) for colon cancer and earlier age of onset (44 vs. 56.5 years) among individuals who have a pathogenic variant in an MMR gene.
  • A variant of RNASEL has also been reported to be associated with an earlier age of onset, with an average age of onset of 40 years for individuals homozygous for the Arg462 variant and 34 years for individuals homozygous for the Gly462 variant [Kruger et al 2005].
  • Pande et al [2008] evaluated a number of genes including CYP1A1, EPHX1, GSTT1, GSTM1, and GSTP1 and found that two sequence variants in CYP1A1 may contribute to earlier age of colon cancer onset in individuals with Lynch syndrome.
  • Analysis of several single nucleotide polymorphisms reported to be associated with colorectal cancer risk were not found to modify the cancer risk in individuals with MMR pathogenic variants [Win et al 2013].

MLH1

Gene structure. MLH1 is 57,357 kb in length, with 19 coding exons encoding a protein of 756 amino acids. For a detailed summary of gene and protein information, see Table A, Gene Symbol.

Pathogenic allelic variants. More than 200 different pathogenic variants have been reported in MLH1 [Peltomaki 2003, Peltomaki & Vasen 2004]; see Table A. Deletions account for 5%-10% of germline MLH1 mutations (i.e., pathogenic variants in the germline).

Constitutional inactivation of MLH1 by methylation, along with somatic loss of heterozygosity of the functional allele, has been reported as a rare cause of Lynch syndrome (~0.6%) [Niessen et al 2009]. These individuals have silencing of one MLH1 allele, throughout their tissues, due to methylation of the promoter and a Lynch syndrome phenotype. Most of such cases are simplex (i.e., a single occurrence in a family), but a few cases of inherited hypermethylation have been reported [Goel et al 2011]. These cases are not detectable by either sequence analysis or duplication/deletion analysis of MLH1.

Normal gene product. DNA mismatch repair protein Mlh1 dimerizes with the product of the PMS2 gene (PMS1 protein homolog 2) to coordinate the binding of other proteins involved with mismatch repair including the helicases, the protein encoded by EXO1, proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), single-stranded-DNA binding-protein (RPA), and DNA polymerases [Peltomaki 2003].

Abnormal gene product. MLH1 acts in a recessive manner at the cellular level where there is an absence of functional Mlh1 protein in the tumor cells. This results from inactivation of both MLH1 alleles in the tumor, which often occurs as a result of an inactivating mutation or silencing of the MLH1 promoter by hypermethylation.

MSH2

Gene structure. MSH2 comprises 16 exons encoding a protein of 934 amino acids. For a detailed summary of gene and protein information, see Table A, Gene Symbol.

Pathogenic allelic variants. More than 170 pathogenic variants have been identified in MSH2 [Peltomaki 2003, Peltomaki & Vasen 2004]. The higher proportion of Alu repeats may contribute to the higher rate of genomic rearrangements in MSH2 than in MLH1 [van der Klift et al 2005]. At least 20% of germline MSH2 mutations are exonic or multiexonic deletions.

Normal gene product. DNA mismatch repair protein MSH2, the protein encoded by MSH2, forms a heterodimer with either DNA mismatch repair protein MSH6 or MSH3 and functions to identify mismatches. A sliding clamp model has been suggested to describe the structure of the heterodimer. Mismatches in the DNA are thought to be detected as the clamp slides along the DNA [Fishel et al 1993, Gruber & Kohlmann 2003].

Abnormal gene product. MSH2 acts in a recessive manner at the cellular level where there is an absence of functional Msh2 protein in the tumor cells. This results from inactivation of both MSH2 alleles in the tumor, which often occurs by the mechanism of loss of heterozygosity (LOH). MSH2 promoter methylation has been shown to be the inactivating event that silences the normal allele in individuals with an MSH2 inactivating pathogenic variant. Of note, this is not a common cause of sporadic colon cancer.

MSH6

Gene structure. MSH6 comprises ten exons encoding a protein of 1360 amino acids. For a detailed summary of gene and protein information, see Table A, Gene Symbol.

Pathogenic allelic variants. More than 30 pathogenic variants have been identified in MSH6 [Peltomaki & Vasen 2004]. Exonic or mult-exonic deletions are a rare cause of germline MSH6 mutations.

Normal gene product. The protein encoded by MSH6, DNA mismatch repair protein MSH6, forms a heterodimer with DNA mismatch repair protein MSH2 and functions to identify mismatches by a sliding clamp model [Fishel et al 1993, Gruber & Kohlmann 2003].

Abnormal gene product. MSH6 acts in a recessive manner at the cellular level where there is an absence of functional MSH6 protein in the tumor cells. This results from inactivation of both MSH6 alleles in the tumor, which often occurs by the mechanism of loss of heterozygosity (LOH).

PMS2

Gene structure. PMS2 comprises 15 exons encoding a protein of 862 amino acids. Multiple pseudogenes have been identified at 7p22, 7p12-13, 7q11, and 7q22 [Nicolaides et al 1995]. For a detailed summary of gene and protein information, see Table A, Gene Symbol.

Pathogenic allelic variants. Germline mutations in PMS2 are rare [Hendriks et al 2006]. Single nucleotide variants and large gene rearrangements have been reported. Studies that have included large deletion testing have found that up to 20% of pathogenic variants may be large deletions (Table 3). Large deletion testing of PMS2 is technically difficult due to numerous pseudogenes and it presents significant challenges to laboratories trying to provide comprehensive large deletion testing for the whole gene. The currently available MLPA (multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification) kit can detect deletions but does not clarify whether the deletion may be in one of the pseudogenes. Testing in coordination with a panel of reference samples can help determine whether deletions are clinically significant [Vaughn et al 2011].

Normal gene product. See MLH1, Normal gene product.

Abnormal gene product. PMS2 acts in a recessive manner at the cellular level where there is an absence of functional PMS2 protein in the tumor cells. This results from inactivation of both PMS2 alleles in the tumor, which often occurs by the mechanism of loss of heterozygosity (LOH).

EPCAM

Gene structure. EPCAM comprises nine exons encoding a protein of 314 amino acids. For a detailed summary of gene and protein information, see Table A, Gene Symbol.

Pathogenic allelic variants. Deletions involving the transcription termination signal of EPCAM are causative in 1% to 2.8% of families with Lynch syndrome. Other EPCAM pathogenic variants that do not affect the transcription termination signal cause autosomal recessive congenital tufting enteropathy [Sivagnanam et al 2010].

Normal gene product. EPCAM expression varies in tissues. High levels of expression were found in colorectal stem cells while low levels of expression were detected in leukocytes [Ligtenberg et al 2009]. Little is known about EPCAM expression in most other tissues predisposed to Lynch syndrome-related cancers.

Abnormal gene product. EPCAM deletions are thought to arise from Alu-mediated recombination events [Kuiper et al 2011]. Elimination of the EPCAM transcription termination signal results in transcription continuing into MSH2 and silencing of the MSH2 promoter by methylation. Through this mechanism the MSH2 allele in cis configuration with the EPCAM deletion becomes inactivated in the tissues in which EPCAM is expressed, while the other MSH2 allele is unaffected. These pathogenic variants are transmitted in an autosomal dominant manner, as are germline mutations in genes involved in MMR [Ligtenberg et al 2009].

References

Published Guidelines/Consensus Statements

  1. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Available online. 2010. Accessed 5-19-14.
  2. American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons. Practice parameters for the treatment of patients with dominantly inherited colorectal cancer (FAP and HNPCC). Available online. 2003. Accessed 5-19-14.
  3. American Society of Human Genetics and American College of Medical Genetics. Points to consider: ethical, legal, and psychosocial implications of genetic testing in children and adolescents. Available online. 1995. Accessed 5-19-14. [PMC free article: PMC1801355] [PubMed: 7485175]
  4. American College of Medical Genetics/American Society of Human Genetics. Joint statement on genetic testing for colon cancer (pdf). Available online. 2000. Accessed 5-19-14.
  5. American Gastroenterological Association. Medical position statement: hereditary colorectal cancer and genetic testing (pdf). Available online. 2001. Accessed 5-19-14.
  6. Giardiello FM, Brensinger JD, Petersen GM. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on hereditary colorectal cancer and genetic testing (pdf). Available online. 2001. Accessed 5-19-14.
  7. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening. Available online. Login required. 2013.
  8. National Society of Genetic Counselors. Position statement on genetic testing of minors for adult-onset disorders. Available online. 2012. Accessed 5-19-14.
  9. National Society of Genetic Counselors and the Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Colorectal Cancer joint practice guideline. Identification of individuals at risk for Lynch syndrome using targeted evaluations and genetic testing. Available online. 2011. Accessed 5-19-14. [PubMed: 22167527]
  10. ACMG technical standards and guidelines for genetic testing for inherited colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis, and MYH-associated polyposis). Available online. 2014. Accessed 5-19-14. [PubMed: 24310308]
  11. American Society of Clinical Oncology Expert Statement: Collection and Use of a Cancer Family History for Oncology Providers. Available online. 2014. Accessed 5-19-14. [PMC free article: PMC3940540] [PubMed: 24493721]

Literature Cited

  1. Aarnio M, Mecklin JP, Aaltonen LA, Nystrom-Lahti M, Jarvinen HJ. Life-time risk of different cancers in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndrome. Int J Cancer. 1995;64:430–3. [PubMed: 8550246]
  2. Aarnio M, Salovaara R, Aaltonen LA, Mecklin JP, Jarvinen HJ. Features of gastric cancer in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Int J Cancer. 1997;74:551–5. [PubMed: 9355980]
  3. Aarnio M, Sankila R, Pukkala E, Salovaara R, Aaltonen LA, de la Chapelle A, Peltomaki P, Mecklin JP, Jarvinen HJ. Cancer risk in mutation carriers of DNA-mismatch-repair genes. Int J Cancer. 1999;81:214–8. [PubMed: 10188721]
  4. Abdel-Rahman WM, Ollikainen M, Kariola R, Jarvinen HJ, Mecklin JP, Nystrom-Lahti M, Knuutila S, Peltomaki P. Comprehensive characterization of HNPCC-related colorectal cancers reveals striking molecular features in families with no germline mismatch repair gene mutations. Oncogene. 2005;24:1542–51. [PubMed: 15674332]
  5. American Cancer Society. Surveillance and health services research. Available online. 2002.
  6. Backes FJ, Leon ME, Ivanov I, Suarez A, Frankel WL, Hampel H, Fowler JM, Copeland LJ, O'Malley DM, Cohn DE. Prospective evaluation of DNA mismatch repair protein expression in primary endometrial cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;114:486–90. [PubMed: 19515405]
  7. Baglietto L, Lindor NM, Dowty DM, Wagner A, Gomez Garcia EB, Vriends AH. Dutch Lynch Syndrome Study Group, Cartwright NR, Barnetson RA, Farrington SM, Tenesa A, Hampel H, Buchanan D, Arnold S, Young J, Walsh MD, Jass J, Macrae F, Antill Y, Winship IM, Giles GG, Goldblatt J, Parry S, Suthers G, Leggett B, Butz M, Aronson M, Poynter JN, Baron JA, Le Marchand L, Haile R, Gallinger S, Hopper JL, Potter J, de la Chapelle A, Vasen HF, Dunlop MG, Thibodeau SN, Jenkins MA. Risks of Lynch syndrome cancers for MSH6 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102:193–201. [PMC free article: PMC2815724] [PubMed: 20028993]
  8. Bakry D, Aronson M, Durno C, Rimawi H, Farah R, Alharbi QK, Alharbi M, Shamvil A, Ben-Shachar S, Mistry M, Constantini S, Dvir R, Qaddoumi I, Gallinger S, Lerner-Ellis J, Pollett A, Stephens D, Kelies S, Chao E, Malkin D, Bouffet E, Hawkins C, Tabori U. Genetic and clinical determinants of constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome: report from the constitutional mismatch repair deficiency consortium. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50:987–96. [PubMed: 24440087]
  9. Bapat B, Lindor NM, Baron J, Siegmund K, Li L, Zheng Y, Haile R, Gallinger S, Jass JR, Young JP, Cotterchio M, Jenkins M, Grove J, Casey G, Thibodeau SN, Bishop DT, Hopper JL, Ahnen D, Newcomb PA, Le Marchand L, Potter JD, Seminara D. Colon Cancer Family Registry. The association of tumor microsatellite instability phenotype with family history of colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:967–75. [PMC free article: PMC2763617] [PubMed: 19258475]
  10. Barnetson RA, Tenesa A, Farrington SM, Nicholl ID, Cetnarskyj R, Porteous ME, Campbell H, Dunlop MG. Identification and survival of carriers of mutations in DNA mismatch-repair genes in colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2751–63. [PubMed: 16807412]
  11. Barrow E, Robinson L, Alduaij W, Shenton A, Clancy T, Lalloo F, Hill J, Evans DG. Cumulative lifetime incidence of extracolonic cancers in Lynch syndrome: a report of 121 families with proven mutations. Clin Genet. 2009;75:141–9. [PubMed: 19215248]
  12. Beamer LC, Grant ML, Espenschied CR, Blazer KR, Hampel HL, Weitzel JN, MacDonald DJ. Reflex immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability testing of colorectal tumors for Lynch syndrome among US cancer programs and follow-up of abnormal results. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(10):1058–63. [PMC free article: PMC3341150] [PubMed: 22355048]
  13. Bellizzi AM, Frankel WL. Colorectal cancer due to deficiency in DNA mismatch repair function: a review. Adv Anat Pathol. 2009;16:405–17. [PubMed: 19851131]
  14. Berends MJ, Wu Y, Sijmons RH, Mensink RG, van der Sluis T, Hordijk-Hos JM, de Vries EG, Hollema H, Karrenbeld A, Buys CH, van der Zee AG, Hofstra RM, Kleibeuker JH. Molecular and clinical characteristics of MSH6 variants: an analysis of 25 index carriers of a germline variant. Am J Hum Genet. 2002;70:26–37. [PMC free article: PMC384896] [PubMed: 11709755]
  15. Bisgaard ML, Bernstein I. HNPCC mutation rate (published abstract). Familial Cancer. 2003;2:56.
  16. Boland CR, Thibodeau SN, Hamilton SR, Sidransky D, Eshleman JR, Burt RW, Meltzer SJ, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Fodde R, Ranzani GN, Srivastava S (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. 58:5248-57. [PubMed: 9823339]
  17. Bouzourene H, Hutter P, Losi L, Martin P, Benhattar J. Selection of patients with germline MLH1 mutated Lynch syndrome by determination of MLH1 methylation and BRAF mutation. Fam Cancer. 2010;9:167–72. [PubMed: 19949877]
  18. Brain K, Sivell S, Bennert K, Howell L, France L, Jordan S, Rogers MT, Gray J, Sampson J. An exploratory comparison of genetic counselling protocols for HNPCC predictive testing. Clin Genet. 2005;68:255–61. [PubMed: 16098015]
  19. Burn J, Bishop DT, Mecklin JP, Macrae F, Möslein G, Olschwang S, Bisgaard ML, Ramesar R, Eccles D, Maher ER, Bertario L, Jarvinen HJ, Lindblom A, Evans DG, Lubinski J, Morrison PJ, Ho JW, Vasen HF, Side L, Thomas HJ, Scott RJ, Dunlop M, Barker G, Elliott F, Jass JR, Fodde R, Lynch HT, Mathers JC. CAPP2 Investigators. Effect of aspirin or resistant starch on colorectal neoplasia in the Lynch syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2567–78. [PubMed: 19073976]
  20. Burt RW. Diagnosing Lynch syndrome: more light at the end of the tunnel. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2012;5(4):507–10. [PubMed: 22491516]
  21. Capelle LG, Van Grieken NC, Lingsma HF, Steyerberg EW, Klokman WJ, Bruno MJ, Vasen HF, Kuipers EJ. Risk and epidemiological time trends of gastric cancer in Lynch syndrome carriers in the Netherlands. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:487–92. [PubMed: 19900449]
  22. Chadwick RB, Pyatt RE, Niemann TH, Richards SK, Johnson CK, Stevens MW, Meek JE, Hampel H, Prior TW, de la Chapelle A. Hereditary and somatic DNA mismatch repair gene mutations in sporadic endometrial carcinoma. J Med Genet. 2001;38:461–6. [PMC free article: PMC1757178] [PubMed: 11474654]
  23. Charbonnier F, Raux G, Wang Q, Drouot N, Cordier F, Limacher JM, Saurin JC, Puisieux A, Olschwang S, Frebourg T. Detection of exon deletions and duplications of the mismatch repair genes in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer families using multiplex polymerase chain reaction of short fluorescent fragments. Cancer Res. 2000;60:2760–3. [PubMed: 10850409]
  24. Chen S, Wang W, Lee S, Nafa K, Lee J, Romans K, Watson P, Gruber SB, Euhus D, Kinzler KW, Jass J, Gallinger S, Lindor NM, Casey G, Ellis N, Giardiello FM, Offit K, Parmigiani G. Colon Cancer Family Registry. Prediction of germline mutations and cancer risk in the Lynch syndrome. JAMA. 2006;296:1479–87. [PMC free article: PMC2538673] [PubMed: 17003396]
  25. Church J, Simmang C. Practice parameters for the treatment of patients with dominantly inherited colorectal cancer (familial adenomatous polyposis and hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:1001–12. [PubMed: 12907889]
  26. Cunningham JM, Kim CY, Christensen ER, Tester DJ, Parc Y, Burgart LJ, Halling KC, McDonnell SK, Schaid DJ, Walsh Vockley C, Kubly V, Nelson H, Michels VV, Thibodeau SN. The frequency of hereditary defective mismatch repair in a prospective series of unselected colorectal carcinomas. Am J Hum Genet. 2001;69:780–90. [PMC free article: PMC1226064] [PubMed: 11524701]
  27. de Leeuw WJ, Dierssen J, Vasen HF, Wijnen JT, Kenter GG, Meijers-Heijboer H, Brocker-Vriends A, Stormorken A, Moller P, Menko F, Cornelisse CJ, Morreau H. Prediction of a mismatch repair gene defect by microsatellite instability and immunohistochemical analysis in endometrial tumours from HNPCC patients. J Pathol. 2000;192:328–35. [PubMed: 11054716]
  28. den Bakker MA, Seynaeve C, Kliffen M, Dinjens WN. Microsatellite instability in a pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma in a patient with hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Histopathology. 2003;43:297–9. [PubMed: 12940783]
  29. Dinh TA, Rosner BI, Atwood JC, Boland CR, Syngal S, Vasen HF, Gruber SB, Burt RW. Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of primary genetic screening for Lynch syndrome in the general population. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2011;4:9–22. [PMC free article: PMC3793254] [PubMed: 21088223]
  30. Dove-Edwin I, Boks D, Goff S, Kenter GG, Carpenter R, Vasen HF, Thomas HJ. The outcome of endometrial carcinoma surveillance by ultrasound scan in women at risk of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma and familial colorectal carcinoma. Cancer. 2002;94:1708–12. [PubMed: 11920532]
  31. Dudok de Wit AC, Tibben A, Duivenvoorden HJ, Niermeijer MF, Passchier J. Predicting adaptation to presymptomatic DNA testing for late onset disorders: who will experience distress? Rotterdam Leiden Genetics Workgroup. J Med Genet. 1998;35:745–54. [PMC free article: PMC1051427] [PubMed: 9733033]
  32. Duraturo F, Liccardo R, Cavallo A, De Rosa M, Grosso M, Izzo P. Association of low-risk MSH2 and MSH2 variant alleles with Lynch syndrome: probability of synergistic effects. Int J Cancer. 2011;129:1643–50. [PubMed: 21128252]
  33. Durno CA, Holter S, Sherman PM, Gallinger S. The gastrointestinal phenotype of germline biallelic mismatch repair gene mutations. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:2449–56. [PubMed: 20531397]
  34. EGAPP Working Group; Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genet Med. 2009;11:35–41. [PMC free article: PMC2743612] [PubMed: 19125126]
  35. Engel C, Rahner N, Schulmann K, Holinski-Feder E, Goecke TO, Schackert HK, Kloor M, Steinke V, Vogelsang H, Möslein G, Görgens H, Dechant S, von Knebel Doeberitz M, Rüschoff J, Friedrichs N, Büttner R, Loeffler M, Propping P, Schmiegel W. German HNPCC Consortium.; Efficacy of annual colonoscopic surveillance in individuals with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:174–82. [PubMed: 19835992]
  36. Entius MM, Keller JJ, Drillenburg P, Kuypers KC, Giardiello FM, Offerhaus GJ. Microsatellite instability and expression of hMLH-1 and hMSH-2 in sebaceous gland carcinomas as markers for Muir-Torre syndrome. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6:1784–9. [PubMed: 10815898]
  37. Evans DG, Gaarenstroom KN, Stirling D, Shenton A, Maehle L, Dørum A, Steel M, Lalloo F, Apold J, Porteous ME, Vasen HF, van Asperen CJ, Moller P. Screening for familial ovarian cancer: poor survival of BRCA1/2 related cancers. J Med Genet. 2009;46:593–7. [PubMed: 18413372]
  38. Fishel R, Lescoe MK, Rao MR, Copeland NG, Jenkins NA, Garber J, Kane M, Kolodner R. The human mutator gene homolog MSH2 and its association with hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer. Cell. 1993;75:1027–38. [PubMed: 8252616]
  39. Gargiulo S, Torrini M, Ollila S, Nasti S, Pastorino L, Cusano R, Bonelli L, Battistuzzi L, Mastracci L, Bruno W, Savarino V, Sciallero S, Borgonovo G, Nyström M, Bianchi-Scarrà G, Mareni C, Ghiorzo P. Germline MLH1 and MSH2 mutations in Italian pancreatic cancer patients with suspected Lynch syndrome. Fam Cancer. 2009;8:547–53. [PubMed: 19728162]
  40. Goel A, Nguyen TP, Leung HC, Nagasaka T, Rhees J, Hotchkiss E, Arnold M, Banerji P, Koi M, Kwok CT, Packham D, Lipton L, Boland CR, Ward RL, Hitchins MP. De novo constitutional MLH1 epimutations confer early-onset colorectal cancer in two new sporadic Lynch syndrome cases, with derivation of the epimutation on the paternal allele in one. Int J Cancer. 2011;128:869–78. [PMC free article: PMC3794437] [PubMed: 20473912]
  41. Gritz ER, Vernon WE, Peterson SK, Baile WF, Marani SK, Amos CI, Frazier ML, Lynch PM. Distress in the cancer patient and its association with genetic testing and counseling for hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer. Cancer Res Ther Ctrl. 1999;8:35–49.
  42. Gruber SB, Kohlmann W. The genetics of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2003;1:137–44. [PubMed: 19764157]
  43. Guilford PJ, Hopkins JB, Grady WM, Markowitz SD, Willis J, Lynch H, Rajput A, Wiesner GL, Lindor NM, Burgart LJ, Toro TT, Lee D, Limacher JM, Shaw DW, Findlay MP, Reeve AE. E-cadherin germline mutations define an inherited cancer syndrome dominated by diffuse gastric cancer. Hum Mutat. 1999;14:249–55. [PubMed: 10477433]
  44. Hamilton SR, Liu B, Parsons RE, Papadopoulos N, Jen J, Powell SM, Krush AJ, Berk T, Cohen Z, Tetu B, Burger PC, Wood PA, Taqi F, Booker SV, Petersen GM, Offerhaus GJA, Tersmette AC, Giardiello FM, Vogelstein V, Kinzler KW. The molecular basis of Turcot's syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:839–47. [PubMed: 7661930]
  45. Hampel H, Frankel W, Panescu J, Lockman J, Sotamaa K, Fix D, Comeras I, La Jeunesse J, Nakagawa H, Westman JA, Prior TW, Clendenning M, Penzone P, Lombardi J, Dunn P, Cohn DE, Copeland L, Eaton L, Fowler J, Lewandowski G, Vaccarello L, Bell J, Reid G, de la Chapelle A. Screening for Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) among endometrial cancer patients. Cancer Res. 2006;66:7810–7. [PubMed: 16885385]
  46. Hampel H, Stephens JA, Pukkala E, Sankila R, Aaltonen LA, Mecklin JP, de la Chapelle A. Cancer risk in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: later age of onset. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:415–21. [PubMed: 16083698]
  47. Haraldsdottir S, Hampel H, Wei L, Wu C, Frankel W, Bekaii-Saab T, de la Chapelle A, Goldberg RM. Prostate cancer incidence in males with Lynch syndrome. Genet Med. 2014 [PubMed: 24434690]
  48. Heald B, Plesec T, Liu X, Pai R, Patil D, Moline J, Sharp RR, Burke CA, Kalady MF, Church J, Eng C. Implementation of universal microsatellite instability and immunohistochemistry screening for diagnosing lynch syndrome in a large academic medical center. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1336–40. [PubMed: 23401454]
  49. Hegde M, Ferber M, Mao R, Samowitz W, Ganguly A. Working Group of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee.; ACMG technical standards and guidelines for genetic testing for inherited colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis, and MYH-associated polyposis). Genet Med. 2014;16(1):101–16. [PubMed: 24310308]
  50. Hendriks YM, Jagmohan-Changur S, van der Klift HM, Morreau H, van Puijenbroek M, Tops C, van Os T, Wagner A, Ausems MG, Gomez E, Breuning MH, Brocker-Vriends AH, Vasen HF, Wijnen JT. Heterozygous mutations in PMS2 cause hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma (Lynch syndrome). Gastroenterology. 2006;130:312–22. [PubMed: 16472587]
  51. Huang SC, Lavine JE, Boland PS, Newbury RO, Kolodner R, Pham TT, Arnold CN, Boland CR, Carethers JM. Germline characterization of early-aged onset of hereditary non- polyposis colorectal cancer. J Pediatr. 2001;138:629–35. [PubMed: 11343035]
  52. Iino H, Simms L, Young J, Arnold J, Winship IM, Webb SI, Furlong KL, Leggett B, Jass JR. DNA microsatellite instability and mismatch repair protein loss in adenomas presenting in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Gut. 2000;47:37–42. [PMC free article: PMC1727981] [PubMed: 10861262]
  53. Järvinen HJ, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Aktán-Collán K, Peltomäki P, Aaltonen LA, Mecklin JP. Ten years after mutation testing for Lynch syndrome: cancer incidence and outcome in mutation-positive and mutation negative family members. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4793–7. [PubMed: 19720893]
  54. Jo WS, Bandipalliam P, Shannon KM, Niendorf KB, Chan-Smutko G, Hur C, Syngal S, Chung DC. Correlation of polyp number and family history of colon cancer with germline MYH mutations. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:1022–8. [PubMed: 16234049]
  55. Kalady MF, McGannon E, Vogel JD, Manilich E, Fazio VW, Church JM. Risk of colorectal adenoma and carcinoma after colectomy for colorectal cancer in patients meeting Amsterdam criteria. Ann Surg. 2010;252:507–11. [PubMed: 20739851]
  56. Kastrinos F, Mukherjee B, Tayob N, Wang F, Sparr J, Raymond VM, Bandipalliam P, Stoffel EM, Gruber SB, Syngal S. Risk of pancreatic cancer in families with Lynch syndrome. JAMA. 2009;302:1790–5. [PMC free article: PMC4091624] [PubMed: 19861671]
  57. Kastrinos F, Steyerberg EW, Mercado R, Balmana J, Holter S, Gallinger S, Siegnund KD, Church JM, Jenkins MA, Lindor NM, Thibodeau SN, Burbidge LA, Wenstrup RJ, Syngal S. The PREMM(1,2,6) Model predicts risk of MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 germline mutations. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:73–81. [PMC free article: PMC3125673] [PubMed: 20727894]
  58. Kawaguchi M, Yanokura M, Banno K, Kobayashi Y, Kuwabara Y, Kobayashi M, Nomura H, Hirasawa A, Susumu N, Aoki D. Analysis of a correlation between the BRAF V600E mutation and abnormal DNA mismatch repair in patients with sporadic endometrial cancer. Int J Oncol. 2009;34:1541–7. [PubMed: 19424571]
  59. Kempers MJ, Kuiper RP, Ockeloen CW, Chappuis PO, Hutter P, Rahner N, Schackert HK, Steinke V, Holinski-Feder E, Morak M, Kloor M, Büttner R, Verwiel ET, van Krieken JH, Nagtegaal ID, Goossens M, van der Post RS, Niessen RC, Sijmons RH, Kluijt I, Hogervorst FB, Leter EM, Gille JJ, Aalfs CM, Redeker EJ, Hes FJ, Tops CM, van Nesselrooij BP, van Gijn ME, Gómez García EB, Eccles DM, Bunyan DJ, Syngal S, Stoffel EM, Culver JO, Palomares MR, Graham T, Velsher L, Papp J, Oláh E, Chan TL, Leung SY, van Kessel AG, Kiemeney LA, Hoogerbrugge N, Ligtenberg MJ. Risk of colorectal and endometrial cancers in EPCAM deletion-positive Lynch syndrome: a cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:49–55. [PMC free article: PMC3670774] [PubMed: 21145788]
  60. Kowalski LD, Mutch DG, Herzog TJ, Rader JS, Goodfellow PJ. Mutational analysis of MLH1 and MSH2 in 25 prospectively-acquired RER+ endometrial cancers. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 1997;18:219–27. [PubMed: 9071575]
  61. Kruger S, Silber AS, Engel C, Gorgens H, Mangold E, Pagenstecher C, Holinski-Feder E, von Knebel Doeberitz M, Moeslein G, Dietmaier W, Stemmler S, Friedl W, Ruschoff J, Schackert HK. Arg462Gln sequence variation in the prostate-cancer-susceptibility gene RNASEL and age of onset of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: a case-control study. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6:566–72. [PubMed: 16054567]
  62. Kuiper RP, Vissers LE, Venkatachalam R, Bodmer D, Hoenselaar E, Goossens M, Haufe A, Kamping E, Niessen RC, Hogervorst FB, Gille JJ, Redeker B, Tops CM, van Gijn ME, van den Ouweland AM, Rahner N, Steinke V, Kahl P, Holinski-Feder E, Morak M, Kloor M, Stemmler S, Betz B, Hutter P, Bunyan DJ, Syngal S, Culver JO, Graham T, Chan TL, Nagtegaal ID, van Krieken JH, Schackert HK, Hoogerbrugge N, van Kessel AG, Ligtenberg MJ. Recurrence and variability of germline EPCAM deletions in Lynch syndrome. Hum Mutat. 2011;32:407–14. [PubMed: 21309036]
  63. Laken SJ, Petersen GM, Gruber SB, Oddoux C, Ostrer H, Giardiello FM, Hamilton SR, Hampel H, Markowitz A, Klimstra D, Jhanwar S, Winawer S, Offit K, Luce MC, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B. Familial colorectal cancer in Ashkenazim due to a hypermutable tract in APC. Nat Genet. 1997;17:79–83. [PubMed: 9288102]
  64. Ligtenberg MJL, Kuiper RP, Chan TL, Goossens M, Hebeda KM, Voorendt M, Lee TY, Bodmer D, Hoenselaar E, Hendriks-Cornelissen SJ, Tsui WY, Kong CK, Brunner HG, van Kessel AG, Yuen ST, van Krieken JH, Leung SY, Hoogerbrugge N. Heritable somatic methylation and inactivation of MSH2 in families with Lynch syndrome due to deletion of the 3’ exons of TACSTD1. Nat Genet. 2009;41:112–7. [PubMed: 19098912]
  65. Lindor NM, Rabe K, Petersen GM, Haile R, Casey G, Baron J, Gallinger S, Bapat B, Aronson M, Hopper J, Jass J, LeMarchand L, Grove J, Potter J, Newcomb P, Terdiman JP, Conrad P, Moslein G, Goldberg R, Ziogas A, Anton-Culver H, de Andrade M, Siegmund K, Thibodeau SN, Boardman LA, Seminara D. Lower cancer incidence in Amsterdam-I criteria families without mismatch repair deficiency: familial colorectal cancer type X. JAMA. 2005;293:1979–85. [PMC free article: PMC2933042] [PubMed: 15855431]
  66. Lu KH, Dinh M, Kohlmann W, Watson P, Green J, Syngal S, Bandipalliam P, Chen LM, Allen B, Conrad P, Terdiman J, Sun C, Daniels M, Burke T, Gershenson DM, Lynch H, Lynch P, Broaddus RR. Gynecologic cancer as a "sentinel cancer" for women with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:569–74. [PubMed: 15738026]
  67. Lu SL, Kawabata M, Imamura T, Akiyama Y, Nomizu T, Miyazono K, Yuasa Y. HNPCC associated with germline mutation in the TGF-beta type II receptor gene. Nat Genet. 1998;19:17–8. [PubMed: 9590282]
  68. Lynch HT, Smyrk T. Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome). An updated review. Cancer. 1996;78:1149–67. [PubMed: 8826936]
  69. Lynch HT, Smyrk TC, Watson P, Lanspa SJ, Lynch JF, Lynch PM, Cavalieri RJ, Boland CR. Genetics, natural history, tumor spectrum, and pathology of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: an updated review. Gastroenterology. 1993;104:1535–49. [PubMed: 8482467]
  70. Lynch HT, Watson P, Kriegler M, Lynch JF, Lanspa SJ, Marcus J, Smyrk T, Fitzgibbons RJ, Cristofaro G. Differential diagnosis of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome I and Lynch syndrome II). Dis Colon Rectum. 1988;31:372–7. [PubMed: 3366037]
  71. Machin P, Catasus L, Pons C, Munoz J, Conde-Zurita JM, Balmana J, Barnadas M, Marti RM, Prat J, Matias-Guiu X. Microsatellite instability and immunostaining for MSH-2 and MLH-1 in cutaneous and internal tumors from patients with the Muir-Torre syndrome. J Cutan Pathol. 2002;29:415–20. [PubMed: 12139636]
  72. Mathers JC, Movahedi M, Macrae F, Mecklin JP, Moeslein G, Olschwang S, Eccles D, Evans G, Maher ER, Bertario L, Bisgaard ML, Dunlop M, Ho JW, Hodgson S, Lindblom A, Lubinski J, Morrison PJ, Murday V, Ramesar R, Side L, Scott RJ, Thomas HJ, Vasen H, Gerdes AM, Barker G, Crawford G, Elliott F, Pylvanainen K, Wijnen J, Fodde R, Lynch H, Bishop DT, Burn J. CAPP2 Investigators. Long-term effect of resistant starch on cancer risk in carriers of hereditary colorectal cancer: an analysis from the CAPP2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:1242–9. [PubMed: 23140761]
  73. Maxwell GL, Risinger JI, Alvarez AA, Barrett JC, Berchuck A. Favorable survival associated with microsatellite instability in endometrioid endometrial cancers. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97:417–22. [PubMed: 11239648]
  74. Misago N, Narisawa Y. Sebaceous neoplasms in Muir-Torre syndrome. Am J Dermatopathol. 2000;22:155–61. [PubMed: 10770437]
  75. Miyaki M, Konishi M, Tanaka K, Kikuchi-Yanoshita R, Muraoka M, Yasuno M, Igari T, Koike M, Chiba M, Mori T. Germline mutation of MSH6 as the cause of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Nat Genet. 1997;17:271–2. [PubMed: 9354786]
  76. Moline J, Mahdi H, Yang B, Biscotti C, Roma AA, Heald B, Rose PG, Michener C, Eng C. Implementation of tumor testing for lynch syndrome in endometrial cancers at a large academic medical center. Gynecol Oncol. 2013;130:121–6. [PubMed: 23612316]
  77. Mueller-Koch Y, Vogelsang H, Kopp R, Lohse P, Keller G, Aust D, Muders M, Gross M, Daum J, Schiemann U, Grabowski M, Scholz M, Kerker B, Becker I, Henke G, Holinski-Feder E. Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: clinical and molecular evidence for a new entity of hereditary colorectal cancer. Gut. 2005;54:1733–40. [PMC free article: PMC1774771] [PubMed: 15955785]
  78. Nagasaka T, Rhees J, Kloor M, Gebert J, Naomoto Y, Boland CR, Goel A. Somatic hypermethylation of MSH2 is a frequent event in Lynch Syndrome colorectal cancers. Cancer Res. 2010;70:3098–108. [PMC free article: PMC2856102] [PubMed: 20388775]
  79. NCCN. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening. www​.nccn.org. Registration required. 2013.
  80. Nicolaides NC, Carter KC, Shell BK, Papadopoulos N, Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW. Genomic organization of the human PMS2 gene family. Genomics. 1995;30:195–206. [PubMed: 8586419]
  81. Niessen RC, Hofstra RM, Westers H, Ligtenberg MJ, Kooi K, Jager PO, de Groote ML, Dijkhuizen T, Olderode-Berends MJ, Hollema H, Kleibeuker JH, Sijmons RH. Germline hypermethylation of MLH1 and EPCAM deletions are a frequent cause of Lynch syndrome. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2009;48:737–44. [PubMed: 19455606]
  82. Nilbert M, Therkildsen C, Nissen A, Akerman M, Bernstein I. Sarcomas associated with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: broad anatomical and morphological spectrum. Fam Cancer. 2009;8:209–13. [PubMed: 19130300]
  83. Obermair A, Youlden DR, Young JP, Lindor NM, Baron JA, Newcomb P, Parry S, Hopper JL, Haile R, Jenkins MA. Risk of endometrial cancer for women diagnosed with HNPCC-related colorectal carcinoma. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:2678–84. [PMC free article: PMC2947566] [PubMed: 20533284]
  84. Ou J, Rasmussen M, Westers H, Andersen SD, Jager PO, Kooi KA, Niessen RC, Eggen BJ, Nielsen FC, Kleibeuker JH, Sijmons RH, Rasmussen LJ, Hofstra RM. Biochemical characterization of MLH3 missense mutations does not reveal an apparent role of MLH3 in Lynch syndrome. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2009;48:340–50. [PubMed: 19156873]
  85. Pande M, Amos CI, Osterwich DR, Chen J, Lynch PM, Broaddus R, Frazier ML. Genetic variation in genes for the xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes CYP1A1, EPHX1, GSTM1, GSTT1, and GSTP1 and susceptibility to colorectal cancer in Lynch syndrome. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17:2393–401. [PMC free article: PMC3028532] [PubMed: 18768509]
  86. Pande M, Lynch PM, Hopper JL, Jenkins MA, Gallinger S, Haile RW, LeMarchand L, Lindor NM, Campbell PT, Newcomb PA, Potter JD, Baron JA, Frazier ML, Amos CI. Smoking and colorectal cancer in Lynch syndrome: results from the Colon Cancer Family Registry and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:1331–9. [PMC free article: PMC2822883] [PubMed: 20145170]
  87. Park YJ, Shin KH, Park JG. Risk of gastric cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer in Korea. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6:2994–8. [PubMed: 10955776]
  88. Peltomaki P, Vasen H. Mutations associated with HNPCC predisposition -- Update of ICG-HNPCC/INSiGHT mutation database. Dis Markers. 2004;20:269–76. [PMC free article: PMC3839397] [PubMed: 15528792]
  89. Peltomaki P. Role of DNA mismatch repair defects in the pathogenesis of human cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1174–9. [PubMed: 12637487]
  90. Plaschke J, Engel C, Krüger S, Holinski-Feder E, Pagenstecher C, Mangold E, Moeslein G, Schulmann K, Gebert J, von Knebel Doeberitz M, Rüschoff J, Loeffler M, Schackert HK. Lower incidence of colorectal cancer and later age of disease onset in 27 families with pathogenic MSH6 germline mutations compared with families with MLH1 and MSH2 mutations: the German Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer Consortium. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4486–94. [PubMed: 15483016]
  91. Ponti G, Losi L, Pedroni M, Lucci-Cordisco E, Di Gregorio C, Pellancani G, Seidenari S. Value of MLH1 and MSH2 mutations in the appearance of Muir-Torre syndrome phenotype in HNPCC patients presenting sebaceous gland tumors or keratoacanthomas. J Invest Dermatol. 2006;126:2302–7. [PubMed: 16826164]
  92. Porteous M, Dunckley M, Appleton S, Catt S, Dunlop M, Campbell H, Cull A. Is it acceptable to approach colorectal cancer patients at diagnosis to discuss genetic testing? A pilot study. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:1400–2. [PMC free article: PMC2394344] [PubMed: 14562005]
  93. Rabban JT, Calkins SM, Karnezis AN, Grenert JP, Blanco A, Crawford B, Chen LM. Association of Tumor Morphology With Mismatch-repair Protein Status in Older Endometrial Cancer Patients: Implications for Universal Versus Selective Screening Strategies for Lynch Syndrome. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38:793–800. [PubMed: 24503759]
  94. Raymond VM, Everett JN, Furtado LV, Gustafson SL, Jungbluth CR, Gruber SB, Hammer GD, Stoffel EM, Greenson JK, Giordano TJ, Else T. Adrenocortical carcinoma is a lynch syndrome-associated cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013a;31:3012–8. [PMC free article: PMC3739861] [PubMed: 23752102]
  95. Raymond VM, Mukherjee B, Wang F, Huang SC, Stoffel EM, Kastrinos F, Syngal S, Cooney KA, Gruber SB. Elevated risk of prostate cancer among men with Lynch syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2013b;31:1713–8. [PMC free article: PMC3641694] [PubMed: 23530095]
  96. Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Sipponen P, Aarnio M, Julkunen R, Aaltonen LA, Sarna S, Jarvinen HJ, Mecklin JP. No support for endoscopic surveillance for gastric cancer in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2002;37:574–7. [PubMed: 12059060]
  97. Resnick K, Straughn JM, Backes F, Hampel H, Matthews KS, Cohn DE. Lynch syndrome screening strategies among newly diagnosed endometrial cancer patients. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:530–6. [PubMed: 19701031]
  98. Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Vasen HF, Lynch HT, Watson P, Myrhoj T, Jarvinen HJ, Mecklin JP, Macrae F, St John DJ, Bertario L, Fidalgo P, Madlensky L, Rozen P. Characteristics of small bowel carcinoma in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma. International Collaborative Group on HNPCC. Cancer. 1998;83:240–4. [PubMed: 9669805]
  99. Ryan S, Jenkins MA, Win AK. Risk of prostate cancer in Lynch syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014;23:437–49. [PubMed: 24425144]
  100. Schulmann K, Brasch FE, Kunstmann E, Engel C, Pagenstecher C, Vogelsang H, Kruger S, Vogel T, Knaebel HP, Ruschoff J, Hahn SA, Knebel-Doeberitz MV, Moeslein G, Meltzer SJ, Schackert HK, Tympner C, Mangold E, Schmiegel W. HNPCC-associated small bowel cancer: clinical and molecular characteristics. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:590–9. [PubMed: 15765394]
  101. Schwartz RA, Torre DP. The Muir-Torre syndrome: a 25-year retrospect. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;33:90–104. [PubMed: 7601953]
  102. Senter L, Clendenning M, Sotamaa K, Hampel H, Green J, Potter JD, Lindblom A, Lagerstedt K, Thibodeau SN, Lindor NM, Young J, Winship I, Dowty JG, White DM, Hopper JL, Baglietto L, Jenkins MA, de la Chapelle A. The clinical phenotype of Lynch syndrome due to germline PMS2 mutations. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:419–28. [PMC free article: PMC2759321] [PubMed: 18602922]
  103. Shia J. Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing for screening colorectal cancer patients at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Part 1: The utility of immunohistochemistry. J Mol Diagn. 2008;10:293–300. [PMC free article: PMC2438196] [PubMed: 18556767]
  104. Sieber OM, Lipton L, Crabtree M, Heinimann K, Fidalgo P, Phillips RK, Bisgaard ML, Orntoft TF, Aaltonen LA, Hodgson SV, Thomas HJ, Tomlinson IP. Multiple colorectal adenomas, classic adenomatous polyposis, and germline mutations in MYH. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:791–9. [PubMed: 12606733]
  105. Sijmons R, Hofstra R, Hollema H, Mensink R, van der Hout A, Hoekstra H, Kleibeuker J, Molenaar W, Wijnen J, Fodde R, Vasen H, Buys C. Inclusion of malignant fibrous histiocytoma in the tumour spectrum associated with hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2000;29:353–5. [PubMed: 11066081]
  106. Sivagnanam M, Schaible T, Szigeti R, Byrd RH, Finegold MJ, Ranganathan S, Gopalakrishna GS, Tatevian N, Kellermayer R. Further evidence for EpCAM as the gene for congenital tufting enteropathy. Am J Med Genet. 2010;152A:222–4. [PubMed: 20034091]
  107. Sjursen W, Haukane BI, Grindedal EM, Aarset H, Stormorken A, Engebretsen LF, Jonsrud C, Bjørnevoll I, Andresen PA, Ariansen S, Lavik LA, Gilde B, Bowitz-Lothe IM, Maehle L, Møller P. Current clinical criteria for Lynch syndrome are not sensitive enough to identify MSH6 mutation carriers. J Med Genet. 2010;47:579–85. [PMC free article: PMC2976029] [PubMed: 20587412]
  108. South CD, Hampel H, Comeras I, Westman JA, Frankel WL, de la Chapelle A. The frequency of Muir-Torre syndrome among Lynch syndrome families. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:277–81. [PubMed: 18270343]
  109. Stoffel E, Mukherjee B, Raymond VM, Tayob N, Kastrinos F, Sparr J, Wang F, Bandipalliam P, Syngal S, Gruber SB. Calculation of risk of colorectal and endometrial cancer among patients with Lynch syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:1621–7. [PMC free article: PMC2767441] [PubMed: 19622357]
  110. Stoffel EM, Turgeon DK, Stockwell DH, Zhao L, Normolle DP, Tuck MK, Bresalier RS, Marcon NE, Baron JA, Ruffin MT, Brenner DE, Syngal S. Great Lakes-New England Clinical Epidemiology and Validation Center of the Early Detection Research Network.; Missed adenomas during colonoscopic surveillance in individuals with Lynch Syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2008;1:470–5. [PMC free article: PMC2671076] [PubMed: 19138994]
  111. Suzui M, Yoshimi N, Hara A, Morishita Y, Tanaka T, Mori H. Genetic alterations in a patient with Turcot's syndrome. Pathol Int. 1998;48:126–33. [PubMed: 9589476]
  112. Syngal S, Fox EA, Eng C, Kolodner RD, Garber JE. Sensitivity and specificity of clinical criteria for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer associated mutations in MSH2 and MLH1. J Med Genet. 2000;37:641–5. [PMC free article: PMC1734690] [PubMed: 10978352]
  113. Thompson E, Meldrum CJ, Crooks R, McPhillips M, Thomas L, Spigelman AD, Scott RJ. Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer and the role of hPMS2 and hEXO1 mutations. Clin Genet. 2004;65:215–25. [PubMed: 14756672]
  114. Tsai YY, Petersen GM, Booker SV, Bacon JA, Hamilton SR, Giardiello FM. Evidence against genetic anticipation in familial colorectal cancer. Genet Epidemiol. 1997;14:435–46. [PubMed: 9271715]
  115. Tutlewska K, Lubinski J, Kurzawski G. Germlie deletions in the EPCAM gene as a cause of Lynch syndrome. Hereditary Cancer in Clincal Practice. 2013;11:1–9. [PMC free article: PMC3765447] [PubMed: 23938213]
  116. Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP, Syngal S, de la Chapelle A, Ruschoff J, Fishel R, Lindor NM, Burgart LJ, Hamelin R, Hamilton SR, Hiatt RA, Jass J, Lindblom A, Lynch HT, Peltomaki P, Ramsey SD, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Vasen HF, Hawk ET, Barrett JC, Freedman AN, Srivastava S. Revised Bethesda Guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:261–8. [PMC free article: PMC2933058] [PubMed: 14970275]
  117. van der Klift H, Wijnen J, Wagner A, Verkuilen P, Tops C, Otway R, Kohonen-Corish M, Vasen H, Oliani C, Barana D, Moller P, Delozier-Blanchet C, Hutter P, Foulkes W, Lynch H, Burn J, Moslein G, Fodde R. Molecular characterization of the spectrum of genomic deletions in the mismatch repair genes MSH2, MLH1, MSH6, and PMS2 responsible for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2005;44:123–38. [PubMed: 15942939]
  118. van der Post RS, Kiemeny LA, Ligtenberg MJ, Witjes JA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Bodmer D, Schaap L, Kets CM, van Krieken JH, Hoogerbrugge N. Risk of urothelial bladder cancer in Lynch syndrome is increased, in particular among MSH2 mutation carriers. J Med Genet. 2010;47:464–70. [PMC free article: PMC2991077] [PubMed: 20591884]
  119. Vasen HF, Mecklin JP, Khan PM, Lynch HT. The International Collaborative Group on hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (ICG-HNPCC). Dis Colon Rectum. 1991;34:424–5. [PubMed: 2022152]
  120. Vasen HF, Stormorken A, Menko FH, Nagengast FM, Kleibeuker JH, Griffioen G, Taal BG, Moller P, Wijnen JT. MSH2 mutation carriers are at higher risk fo cancer than MLH1 mutation carriers: a study of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer families. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:4074–80. [PubMed: 11600610]
  121. Vasen HF, Watson P, Mecklin JP, Jass JR, Green JS, Nomizu T, Müller H, Lynch HT. The epidemiology of endometrial cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res. 1994;14:1675–8. [PubMed: 7979205]
  122. Vasen HF, Watson P, Mecklin JP, Lynch HT. New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology. 1999;116:1453–6. [PubMed: 10348829]
  123. Vaughn CP, Hart KJ, Samowitz WS, Swensen JJ. Avoidance of pseudogene interfence in the detection of 3’ deletions in PMS2. Hum Mutat. 2011;32:1063–71. [PubMed: 21618646]
  124. Vernon SW, Gritz ER, Peterson SK, Amos CI, Perz CA, Baile WF, Lynch PM. Correlates of psychologic distress in colorectal cancer patients undergoing genetic testing for hereditary colon cancer. Health Psychol. 1997;16:73–86. [PubMed: 9028817]
  125. Wagner A, Barrows A, Wijnen JT, van der Klift H, Franken PF, Verkuijlen P, Nakagawa H, Geugien M, Jaghmohan-Changur S, Breukel C, Meijers-Heijboer H, Morreau H, van Puijenbroek M, Burn J, Coronel S, Kinarski Y, Okimoto R, Watson P, Lynch JF, de la Chapelle A, Lynch HT, Fodde R. Molecular analysis of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer in the United States: high mutation detection rate among clinically selected families and characterization of an American founder genomic deletion of the MSH2 gene. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;72:1088–100. [PMC free article: PMC1180263] [PubMed: 12658575]
  126. Wahlberg SS, Schmeits J, Thomas G, Loda M, Garber J, Syngal S, Kolodner RD, Fox E. Evaluation of microsatellite instability and immunohistochemistry for the prediction of germ-line MSH2 and MLH1 mutations in hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer families. Cancer Res. 2002;62:3485–92. [PubMed: 12067992]
  127. Walsh MD, Buchanan DD, Pearson SA, Clendenning M, Jenkins MA, Win AK, Walters RJ, Spring KJ, Nagler B, Pavluk E, Arnold ST, Goldblatt J, George J, Suthers GK, Phillips K, Hopper JL, Jass JR, Baron JA, Ahnen DJ, Thibodeau SN, Lindor N, Parry S, Walker NI, Rosty C, Young JP. Immunohistochemical testing of conventional adenomas for loss of expression of mismatch repair proteins in Lynch syndrome mutation carriers: a case series from the Australasian site of the colon cancer family registry. Mod Pathol. 2012;25:722–30. [PMC free article: PMC3477239] [PubMed: 22322191]
  128. Walsh MD, Buchanan DD, Cummings MC, Pearson SA, Arnold ST, Clendenning M, Walters R, McKeone DM, Spurdle AB, Hopper JL, Jenkins MA, Phillips KD, Suthers GK, George J, Goldblatt J, Muir A, Tucker K, Pelzer E, Gattas MR, Woodall S, Parry S, Macrae FA, Haile RW, Baron JA, Potter JD, Le Marchand L, Bapat B, Thibodeau SN, Lindor NM, McGuckin MA, Young JP. Lynch syndrome-associated breast cancers: clinicopathologic characteristics of a case series from the colon cancer family registry. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:2214–24. [PMC free article: PMC2848890] [PubMed: 20215533]
  129. Watson P, Ashwathnarayan R, Lynch HT, Roy HK. Tobacco use and increased colorectal cancer risk in patients with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome). Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2429–31. [PubMed: 15596632]
  130. Watson P, Butzow R, Lynch HT, Mecklin JP, Jarvinen HJ, Vasen HF, Madlensky L, Fidalgo P, Bernstein I. The clinical features of ovarian cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;82:223–8. [PubMed: 11531271]
  131. Watson P, Lin KM, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Smyrk T, Lemon S, Shashidharan M, Franklin B, Karr B, Thorson A, Lynch HT. Colorectal carcinoma survival among hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal carcinoma family members. Cancer. 1998;83:259–66. [PubMed: 9669808]
  132. Watson P, Vasen HF, Mecklin JP, Bernstein I, Aarnio M, Järvinen HJ, Myrhøj T, Sunde L, Wijnen JT, Lynch HT. The risk of extra-colonic, extra-endometrial cancer in the Lynch syndrome. Int J Cancer. 2008;123:444–9. [PMC free article: PMC2627772] [PubMed: 18398828]
  133. Watson P, Vasen HF, Mecklin JP, Jarvinen H, Lynch HT. The risk of endometrial cancer in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Am J Med. 1994;96:516–20. [PubMed: 8017449]
  134. Weissman SM, Bellcross C, Bittner CC, Freivogel ME, Haidle JL, Kaurah P, Leininger A, Palaniappan S, Steenblock K, Vu TM, Daniels MS. Genetic counseling considerations in the evaluation of families for Lynch syndrome--a review. J Genet Couns. 2011;20:5–19. [PubMed: 20931355]
  135. Westphalen AA, Russell AM, Buser M, Berthod CR, Hutter P, Plasilova M, Mueller H, Heinimann K. Evidence for genetic anticipation in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Hum Genet. 2005;116:461–5. [PubMed: 15772852]
  136. Wijnen J, van der Klift H, Vasen H, Khan PM, Menko F, Tops C, Meijers Heijboer H, Lindhout D, Moller P, Fodde R. MSH2 genomic deletions are a frequent cause of HNPCC. Nat Genet. 1998;20:326–8. [PubMed: 9843200]
  137. Wimmer K, Etzler J. Constitutional mismatch repair-deficiency syndrome: have we so far seen only the tip of an iceberg? Hum Genet. 2008;124:105–22. [PubMed: 18709565]
  138. Win AK, Young JP, Lindor NM, Tucker KM, Ahnen DJ, Young GP, Buchanan DD, Clendenning M, Giles GG, Winship I, Macrae FA, Goldblatt J, Southey MC, Arnold J, Thibodeau SN, Gunawardena SR, Bapat B, Baron JA, Casey G, Gallinger S, Le Marchand L, Newcomb PA, Haile RW, Hopper JL, Jenkins MA. Colorectal and other cancer risks for carriers and noncarriers from families with a DNA mismatch repair gene mutation: a prospective cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:958–64. [PMC free article: PMC3341109] [PubMed: 22331944]
  139. Win AK, Hopper JL, Buchanan DD, Young JP, Tenesa A, Dowty JG, Giles GG, Goldblatt J, Winship I, Boussioutas A, Young GP, Parry S, Baron JA, Duggan D, Gallinger S, Newcomb PA, Haile RW, Le Marchand L, Lindor NM, Jenkins MA. Are the common genetic variants associated with colorectal cancer risk for DNA mismatch repair gene mutation carriers? Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:1578–87. [PMC free article: PMC3625445] [PubMed: 23434150]
  140. Wu Y, Berends MJ, Mensink RG, Kempinga C, Sijmons RH, van Der Zee AG, Hollema H, Kleibeuker JH, Buys CH, Hofstra RM. Association of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer-related tumors displaying low microsatellite instability with MSH6 germline mutations. Am J Hum Genet. 1999;65:1291–8. [PMC free article: PMC1288281] [PubMed: 10521294]
  141. Zecevic M, Amos CI, Gu X, Campos IM, Jones JS, Lynch PM, Rodriguez-Bigas MA, Frazier ML. IGF1 gene polymorphism and risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:139–43. [PubMed: 16418517]
  142. Zhang L. Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing for screening colorectal cancer patients at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome. Part II: The utility of microsatellite instability testing. J Mol Diagn. 2008;10:301–7. [PMC free article: PMC2438197] [PubMed: 18556776]

Suggested Reading

  1. Hampel H, Panescu J, Lockman J, Sotamaa K, Fix D, Comeras I, LaJeunesse J, Nakagawa H, Westman JA, Prior TW, Clendenning M, de la Chapelle A, Frankel W, Penzone P, Cohn DE, Copeland L, Eaton L, Fowler J, Lombardi J, Dunn P, Bell J, Reid G, Lewandowski G, Vaccarello L. Comment on: Screening for Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer) among endometrial cancer patients. Cancer Res. 2007;67:9603. [PubMed: 17909073]
  2. Rumilla K, Schowalter KV, Lindo NM, Thomas BC, Mensink KA, Gallinger S, Holter S, Newcomb PA, Potter JD, Jenkins MA, Hopper JL, Long TI, Weisenberger DJ, Haile RW, Casey G, Laird PW, Le Marchand L, Thibodeau SN. Frequency of deletions of EPCAM (TACSTD1) in MSH2-associated Lynch syndrome cases. J Mol Diagn. 2011;13:93–9. [PMC free article: PMC3069927] [PubMed: 21227399]

Chapter Notes

Revision History

  • 22 May 2014 (me) Comprehensive update posted live
  • 20 September 2012 (cd) Revision: Multi-gene panels for Lynch syndrome (hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer) available clinically
  • 11 August 2011 (me) Comprehensive update posted live
  • 29 November 2006 (me) Comprehensive update posted to live Web site
  • 5 February 2004 (me) Review posted to live Web site
  • 18 April 2003 (sg) Original submission
Copyright © 1993-2014, University of Washington, Seattle. All rights reserved.

For more information, see the GeneReviews Copyright Notice and Usage Disclaimer.

For questions regarding permissions: ude.wu@tssamda.

Bookshelf ID: NBK1211PMID: 20301390
PubReader format: click here to try

Views

Tests in GTR by Gene

Related information

  • MedGen
    Related information in MedGen
  • OMIM
    Related OMIM records
  • PMC
    PubMed Central citations
  • PubMed
    Links to pubmed
  • Gene
    Gene records cited in chapters on the NCBI bookshelf. Links are provided by the authors or the NCBI Bookshelf staff.

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...