Actionability Assertions

Gene Condition (MONDO ID) OMIM ID Final Assertion
MLH1 colorectal cancer, hereditary nonpolyposis, type 2 (0012249) 609310 Definitive Actionability
MSH2 Lynch syndrome 1 (0007356) 120435 Definitive Actionability
MSH6 colorectal cancer, hereditary nonpolyposis, type 5 (0013710) 614350 Definitive Actionability
PMS2 colorectal cancer, hereditary nonpolyposis, type 4 (0013699) 614337 Strong Actionability
EPCAM colorectal cancer, hereditary nonpolyposis, type 8 (0013196) 613244 Definitive Actionability

Actionability Assertion Rationale

  • All experts agreed with an assertion of definitive for MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and the EPCAM 3' deletion based on strong evidence of actionability and meeting the following criteria: penetrance evidence from an unselected population, effectiveness evidence from the exact population and based on a direct impact of the intervention on the outcome. We recognize that there is variability in penetrance among these genes. All experts agreed on an assertion of strong for PMS2 due to lower penetrance. Future updates may impact the assertion for PMS2. This topic has been assigned as assertion of definitive. Thus, this topic will not be updated unless it is renominated because of new evidence which could change the assertion.

Actionability Scores

Outcome / Intervention Pair Severity Likelihood Effectiveness Nature of Intervention Total Score
Colorectal cancer / Surveillance 2 3A 3A 2 10AA
Endometrial Cancer / Surveillance 2 3A 1A 2 8AA
Endometrial Cancer / Risk Reducing Surgery 2 3A 3B 1 9AB
View scoring key
Domain of Actionability Scoring Metric State of the Knowledgebase
Severity: What is the nature of the threat to health to an individual? 3 = Sudden death as a reasonably possible outcome
2 = Reasonable possibility of death or major morbidity
1 = Modest morbidity
0 = Minimal or no morbidity
N/A
Likelihood: What is the chance that the outcome will occur? 3 = >40% chance
2 = 5%-39% chance
1 = 1%-4% chance
0 = <1% chance
A = Substantial evidence or evidence from a high tier (tier 1)
B = Moderate evidence or evidence from a moderate tier (tier 2)
C = Minimal evidence or evidence from a lower tier (tier 3 or 4)
D = Poor evidence or evidence not provided in the report
N = Evidence based on expert contributions (tier 5)
Effectiveness: What is the effectiveness of a specific intervention in preventing or diminishing the risk of harm? 3 = Highly effective
2 = Moderately effective
1 = Minimally effective
0 = Controversial or unknown effectiveness
IN = Ineffective/No interventiona
A = Substantial evidence or evidence from a high tier (tier 1)
B = Moderate evidence or evidence from a moderate tier (tier 2)
C = Minimal evidence or evidence from a lower tier (tier 3 or 4)
D = Poor evidence or evidence not provided in the report
N = Evidence based on expert contributions (tier 5)
Nature of intervention: How risky, medically burdensome, or intensive is the intervention? 3 = Low risk, or medically acceptable and low intensity
2 = Moderate risk, moderately acceptable or intensive
1 = Greater risk, less acceptable and substantial intensity
0 = High risk, poorly acceptable or intensive
N/A
a Do not score the remaining categories

Prevalence of the Genetic Condition

Currently in the US, roughly 1,154,000 people are living with CRC while 600,000 women are living with endometrial cancer. LS is the most common heritable CRC and accounts for 1-5% of all CRC cases and 2% of all endometrial cancer cases.
View Citations

Johnson PM, et al. (2006) PMID: 16284887, Balmana J, et al. (2013) PMID: 23813931, W Kohlmann, et al. (2004) NCBI: NBK1211, (2014) URL: www.cancer.org., Vasen HF, et al. (2013) PMID: 23408351, Giardiello FM, et al. (2014) PMID: 25070057

Clinical Features (Signs / symptoms)

LS is characterized by an increased risk of CRC and other cancers including endometrial, ovarian, and gastric. Cancers typically develop at an early age and individuals may develop multiple cancers. The majority (>90%) of LS-associated CRC tumors show microsatellite instability indicating the malfunction or loss of mismatch repair gene products.
View Citations

Johnson PM, et al. (2006) PMID: 16284887, Balmana J, et al. (2013) PMID: 23813931, W Kohlmann, et al. (2004) NCBI: NBK1211, Vasen HF, et al. (2013) PMID: 23408351, Giardiello FM, et al. (2014) PMID: 25070057, (2009) URL: www.guidelinecentral.com., (2013) URL: www.nccn.org.

Natural History (Important subgroups & survival / recovery)

The average age at diagnosis is 44-61 years for CRC, 48-62 years for endometrial cancer, 42 years for ovarian cancer, and later for other LS-associated cancers. The most common LS-associated cancer is CRC, which is not associated with polyposis and typically arises from a single colorectal lesion, advances more rapidly from adenoma to carcinoma than sporadic CRC, and is most common on the right side of the colon. The lifetime risk of cancer varies with the gene mutated and sex, with males having a higher risk of developing CRC compared to females. Recurrence of CRC is common. However, patients with LS-associated CRC and endometrial cancer have improved survival compared to patients with sporadic tumors.
View Citations

Balmana J, et al. (2013) PMID: 23813931, W Kohlmann, et al. (2004) NCBI: NBK1211, Giardiello FM, et al. (2014) PMID: 25070057, (2009) URL: www.guidelinecentral.com., (2013) URL: www.nccn.org.

Description of sources of evidence:

Tier 1: Evidence from a systematic review or a meta-analysis or clinical practice guideline clearly based on a systematic review.
Tier 2: Evidence from clinical practice guidelines or broad-based expert consensus with non-systematic evidence review.
Tier 3: Evidence from another source with non-systematic review of evidence with primary literature cited.
Tier 4: Evidence from another source with non-systematic review of evidence with no citations to primary data sources.
Tier 5: Evidence from a non-systematically identified source.

Mode of Inheritance

Autosomal Dominant

Prevalence of Genetic Variants

1-2 in 500
LS has an estimated prevalence of 1/440 in the general population.
Tier 3 View Citations

W Kohlmann, et al. (2004) NCBI: NBK1211

By definition, cases of Lynch Syndrome are due to a defect in one of the mismatch repair genes.
Tier 3 View Citations

Balmana J, et al. (2013) PMID: 23813931

Penetrance (Includes any high-risk racial or ethnic subgroups)

>= 40 %
Cumulative risks of cancer in LS by age 70: colorectal =25-70% , endometrial =30-70%, gastric=1-9%, small bowel=1-4%, biliary tract=1-2%, pancreas=1-4%, urinary tract =2-8%, upper urinary tract=6%, bladder=2-16%, ovarian=6-14%, brain =3.5%, prostate=9-30%, breast=5-14%. Risk may vary by MMR gene. Carriers of EPCAM deletions have a similar risk of CRC but a lower risk of endometrial cancer (12% by age 70).
Tier 3 View Citations

Vasen HF, et al. (2013) PMID: 23408351

Relative Risk (Includes any high-risk racial or ethnic subgroups)

2-3
Males have a roughly 2.1- to 2.3-fold risk of prostate cancer.
Tier 1 View Citations

Ryan S, et al. (2014) PMID: 24425144

Expressivity

Information in variable expressivity was not available.

Description of sources of evidence:

Tier 1: Evidence from a systematic review or a meta-analysis or clinical practice guideline clearly based on a systematic review.
Tier 2: Evidence from clinical practice guidelines or broad-based expert consensus with non-systematic evidence review.
Tier 3: Evidence from another source with non-systematic review of evidence with primary literature cited.
Tier 4: Evidence from another source with non-systematic review of evidence with no citations to primary data sources.
Tier 5: Evidence from a non-systematically identified source.

Patient Management

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) has developed ACT sheets to help clinical decision-making when one or more pathogenic variants in LS genes are identified as secondary findings and for people with a family history of colon cancer:

Secondary Findings ACT sheet: https://www.acmg.net/PDFLibrary/Lynch-Syndrome.pdf

Family History ACT Sheet: https://www.acmg.net/PDFLibrary/Colon-Cancer.pdf
Prophylactic hysterectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy have been shown to reduce the risk to develop endometrial and ovarian cancer associated with LS, and should be discussed as an option to mutation carriers once child-bearing is complete and after age 35-40. A retrospective study showed an absence of gynecological cancers among women who underwent prophylactic hysterectomy and/or bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, compared to 33% and 5% incidence of endometrial and ovarian cancer, respectively, among women who did not have surgery.
Tier 2 View Citations

Balmana J, et al. (2013) PMID: 23813931, Vasen HF, et al. (2013) PMID: 23408351, Giardiello FM, et al. (2014) PMID: 25070057, (2009) URL: www.guidelinecentral.com., (2013) URL: www.nccn.org., Stoffel EM, et al. (2015) PMID: 25452455

Regular aspirin significantly reduces LS cancer incidence. Evidence from a randomized controlled trial indicated regular aspirin reduced the incidence of CRC and other LS-associated cancers by 60%.
Tier 2 View Citations

Balmana J, et al. (2013) PMID: 23813931, Vasen HF, et al. (2013) PMID: 23408351, Giardiello FM, et al. (2014) PMID: 25070057, (2012) URL: www.nmml.org.au.

Health professionals should be aware of potential psychosocial problems associated with genetic testing and surveillance, and patients experiencing psychological distress should be offered referral to a clinical psychologist.
Tier 2 View Citations

Vasen HF, et al. (2013) PMID: 23408351

Surveillance

Regular colonoscopic surveillance has been shown to lead to significant reduction of LS CRC incidence, detection of CRC cases at an earlier stage, and reduction in CRC-associated mortality. Individuals with LS should undergo colonoscopy every 1-3 years starting at age 20-25 years. Five out of six studies found a significantly reduced incidence rate of CRC with surveillance (OR estimates ranged from 0.11 to 0.35), while the sixth study reporting an OR of 0.93 was not significant. Two out of four studies have shown a significant reduction in CRC-related mortality with surveillance (OR estimates range from 0.04 to 0.17), while three of the four studies reported no mortality in the study arm with surveillance.
Tier 1 View Citations

(2009) URL: www.guidelinecentral.com., Barrow P, et al. (2013) PMID: 24227356

Transvaginal ultrasound with endometrial biopsy may detect cancers and premalignant lesions of the endometrium, though interval endometrial carcinomas still occur and no subsequent improvement in survival has been demonstrated.
Tier 1 View Citations
Individuals with LS should undergo esophagogastroduodenoscopy to screen for gastric cancer, though the age to start screening and the frequencies varies across recommendations, from age 30-25 to age 50 and from twice a year to every 2-3 years, respectively. However, there was no evidence provided that this surveillance reduces mortality.
Tier 2 View Citations

Giardiello FM, et al. (2014) PMID: 25070057, (2013) URL: www.nccn.org., Cairns SR, et al. (2010) PMID: 20427401, (2011) URL: www.sign.ac.uk.

To screen for cancers of the urinary tract, individuals with LS should undergo urinalysis on an annual basis beginning at age 25-35 years.
Tier 2 View Citations

Giardiello FM, et al. (2014) PMID: 25070057, (2013) URL: www.nccn.org.

Circumstances to Avoid

Smoking and high BMI are associated with an increased risk of adenomas and CRC in LS, thus patients are advised to stay within the normal weight range and refrain from cigarette smoking.
Tier 2 View Citations

Vasen HF, et al. (2013) PMID: 23408351

Description of sources of evidence:

Tier 1: Evidence from a systematic review or a meta-analysis or clinical practice guideline clearly based on a systematic review.
Tier 2: Evidence from clinical practice guidelines or broad-based expert consensus with non-systematic evidence review.
Tier 3: Evidence from another source with non-systematic review of evidence with primary literature cited.
Tier 4: Evidence from another source with non-systematic review of evidence with no citations to primary data sources.
Tier 5: Evidence from a non-systematically identified source.

Nature of Intervention

Endoscopic surveillance can be burdensome for individuals. (Tier 2)\nIn addition, colonoscopy is associated with risks, including pain, nausea, bleeding, perforation, and death. (Tier 3)
Context: Adult
View Citations

Johnson PM, et al. (2006) PMID: 16284887, (2009) URL: www.guidelinecentral.com.

Chance to Escape Clinical Detection

LS-associated CRC has a lower average age of onset and advances at a more rapid rate compared to sporadic CRC and an increased risk of endometrial cancer, making it likely that these patients would escape detection using surveillance recommendations for average risk populations as screening for CRC is recommended in older populations and endometrial cancer screening is not recommended for the general population at all.
Context: Adult
Tier 4 View Citations

Description of sources of evidence:

Tier 1: Evidence from a systematic review or a meta-analysis or clinical practice guideline clearly based on a systematic review.
Tier 2: Evidence from clinical practice guidelines or broad-based expert consensus with non-systematic evidence review.
Tier 3: Evidence from another source with non-systematic review of evidence with primary literature cited.
Tier 4: Evidence from another source with non-systematic review of evidence with no citations to primary data sources.
Tier 5: Evidence from a non-systematically identified source.
Gene Condition Associations
OMIM Identifier Primary MONDO Identifier Additional MONDO Identifiers
MLH1 609310 0012249 0005835
MSH2 120435 0007356 0005835
MSH6 614350 0013710 0005835
PMS2 614337 0013699 0005835
EPCAM 613244 0013196 0005835

References List

American Cancer Society. Other (2014) URL: https://www.cancer.org

Association of Comprehensive Cancer Centres. Hereditary colorectal cancer. Amsterdam, The Netherlands Association of Comprehensive Cancer Centres. Other (2009) URL: https://www.guidelinecentral.com/summaries/hereditary-colorectal-cancer/

Balmana J, Balaguer F, Cervantes A, Arnold D. (2013) Familial risk-colorectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology / ESMO. 24 Suppl 6(1569-8041):vi73-80.

Barrow P, Khan M, Lalloo F, Evans DG, Hill J. (2013) Systematic review of the impact of registration and screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in familial adenomatous polyposis and Lynch syndrome. The British journal of surgery. 100(13):1719-31.

Cairns SR, Scholefield JH, Steele RJ, Dunlop MG, Thomas HJ, Evans GD, Eaden JA, Rutter MD, Atkin WP, Saunders BP, Lucassen A, Jenkins P, Fairclough PD, Woodhouse CR. (2010) Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in moderate and high risk groups (update from 2002). Gut. 59(5):666-89.

Colorectal Cancer Screening. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Other (2013) URL: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/colorectal_screening.pdf

Diagnosis and management of colorectal cancer. A national clinical guideline. SIGN (2011) URL: http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/126/

Giardiello FM, Allen JI, Axilbund JE, Boland CR, Burke CA, Burt RW, Church JM, Dominitz JA, Johnson DA, Kaltenbach T, Levin TR, Lieberman DA, Robertson DJ, Syngal S, Rex DK. (2014) Guidelines on genetic evaluation and management of Lynch syndrome: a consensus statement by the US Multi-society Task Force on colorectal cancer. The American journal of gastroenterology. 109(8):1159-79.

Johnson PM, Gallinger S, McLeod RS. (2006) Surveillance colonoscopy in individuals at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer: an evidence-based review. Diseases of the colon and rectum. 49(1):80-93; discussion 94-5.

Prevention of vascular and metabolic disease. Guidelines for preventive activities in general practice, 8th edition.East Melbourne (Australia). Other (2012) URL: http://www.nmml.org.au/content/Document/RACGP%20Red%20Book.pdf

Ryan S, Jenkins MA, Win AK. (2014) Risk of prostate cancer in Lynch syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology. 23(3):437-49.

Stoffel EM, Mangu PB, Gruber SB, Hamilton SR, Kalady MF, Lau MW, Lu KH, Roach N, Limburg PJ. (2015) Hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline endorsement of the familial risk-colorectal cancer: European Society for Medical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines. Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 33(2):209-17.

Vasen HF, Blanco I, Aktan-Collan K, Gopie JP, Alonso A, Aretz S, Bernstein I, Bertario L, Burn J, Capella G, Colas C, Engel C, Frayling IM, Genuardi M, Heinimann K, Hes FJ, Hodgson SV, Karagiannis JA, Lalloo F, Lindblom A, Mecklin JP, Moller P, Myrhoj T, Nagengast FM, Parc Y, Ponz de Leon M, Renkonen-Sinisalo L, Sampson JR, Stormorken A, Sijmons RH, Tejpar S, Thomas HJ, Rahner N, Wijnen JT, Jarvinen HJ, Moslein G. (2013) Revised guidelines for the clinical management of Lynch syndrome (HNPCC): recommendations by a group of European experts. Gut. 62(6):812-23.

W Kohlmann, SB Gruber. Lynch Syndrome. (2004) [Updated May 22 2014]. In: RA Pagon, MP Adam, HH Ardinger, et al., editors. GeneReviews® [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993-2026. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1211/

Early Rule-Out Summary

This topic passed the early rule out stage

Findings of Early Rule-Out Assessment

  1. Is there a qualifying resource, such as a practice guideline or systematic review, for the genetic condition?
  2. Does the practice guideline or systematic review indicate that the result is actionable in one or more of the following ways?
  3. a. Patient Management

    b. Surveillance or Screening

    c. Circumstances to Avoid

  4. Is it actionable in an undiagnosed adult with the condition?
  5. Is this condition an important health problem?
  6. Is there at least on known pathogenic variant with at least moderate penetrance (≥40%) or moderate relative risk (≥2) in any population?