M.I. Castillejo

Germline mutations in DNA polymerase ɛ (POLE) and δ (POLD1) have been recently identified in families with multiple colorectal adenomas and colorectal cancer (CRC). All reported cases carried POLE c.1270C>G (p.Leu424Val) or POLD1 c.1433G>A (p.Ser478Asn) mutations. Due to the scarcity of cases reported so far, an accurate clinical phenotype has not been defined. We aimed to assess the prevalence of these recurrent mutations in unexplained familial and early-onset CRC and polyposis, and to add additional information to define the clinical characteristics of mutated cases. A total of 858 familial/early onset CRC and polyposis patients were studied: 581 familial and early-onset CRC cases without mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency, 86 cases with MMR deficiency and 191 polyposis cases. Mutation screening was performed by KASPar genotyping assays and/or Sanger sequencing of the involved exons. POLE p.L424V was identified in a 28-year-old polyposis and CRC patient, as a de novo mutation. None of the 858 cases studied carried POLD1 p.S478N. A new mutation, POLD1 c.1421T>C (p.Leu474Pro), was identified in a mismatch repair proficient Amsterdam II family. Its pathogenicity was supported by cosegregation in the family, in silico predictions, and previously published yeast assays. POLE and POLD1 mutations explain a fraction of familial CRC and polyposis. Sequencing the proofreading domains of POLE and POLD1 should be considered in routine genetic diagnostics. Until additional evidence is gathered, POLE and POLD1 genetic testing should not be restricted to polyposis cases, and the presence of de novo mutations, considered.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is a hereditary condition that increases the risk for endometrial and other cancers. The identification of endometrial cancer (EC) patients with LS has the potential to influence life-saving interventions. We aimed to study the prevalence of LS among EC patients in our population. METHODS: Universal screening for LS was applied for a consecutive series EC. Tumor testing using microsatellite instability (MSI), immunohistochemistry (IHC) for mismatch-repair (MMR) protein expression and MLH1-methylation analysis, when required, was used to select LS-suspicious cases. Sequencing of corresponding MMR genes was performed. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-three EC (average age, 63 years) were screened. Sixty-one patients (35%) had abnormal IHC or MSI results. After MLH1 methylation analysis, 27 cases were considered suspicious of LS. From these, 22 were contacted and referred for genetic counseling. Nineteen pursued genetic testing and eight were diagnosed of LS. Mutations were more frequent in younger patients (<50 yrs). Three cases had either intact IHC or MSS and reinforce the need of implement the EC screening with both techniques. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of LS among EC patients was 4.6% (8/173); with a predictive frequency of 6.6% in the Spanish population. Universal screening of EC for LS is recommended.

There is an unambiguous association of Streptococcus gallolyticus infection with colorectal cancer, although there is limited information about epidemiology or interaction between molecular and environmental factors. We performed an original quantitative analysis of S. gallolyticus in unselected colorectal cancer patients (n = 190) and their association with clinical, pathological tumor molecular profiles (microsatellite instability, hypermethylator phenotype and chromosomal instability pathways), and other biological factors in colorectal tumor and normal tissues (cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus infection). We developed a new quantitative method to assess bacterial load. Analytical validation was reached with a very high sensitivity and specificity. Our results showed a 3.2% prevalence of S. gallolyticus infection in our unselected cohort of colorectal cancer cases (6/190). The average S. gallolyticus copy number was 7,018 (range 44-34,585). No previous reports relating to S. gallolyticus infection have been published for unselected cohorts of patients. Finally, and despite a low prevalence of S. gallolyticus in this study, we were able to define a specific association with tumor tissue (p = 0.03) and with coinfection with Epstein-Barr virus (p = 0.042; OR: 9.49; 95% IC: 1.1-82.9). The prevalence data provided will be very useful in the design of future studies, and will make it possible to estimate the sample size needed to assess precise objectives. In conclusion, our results show a low prevalence of S. gallolyticus infection in unselected colorectal cancer patients and an association of positive S. gallolyticus infection with tumor tissue and Epstein-Barr virus coinfection. Further studies will be needed to definitively assess the prevalence of S. gallolyticus in colorectal cancer and the associated clinicopathological and molecular profiles.