cancers Article Risk of Cancer in Family Members of Patients with Lynch-Like Syndrome María Dolores Picó 1 , Ana Beatriz Sánchez-Heras 2 , Adela Castillejo 3 , Mar Giner-Calabuig 4 , Miren Alustiza 4 , Ariadna Sánchez 5 , Leticia Moreira 5 , María Pellise 5 , Antoni Castells 5 , Gemma Llort 6 , Carmen Yagüe 6 , Teresa Ramon y Cajal 7 , Alexandra Gisbert-Beamud 7 , Joaquin Cubiella 8 , Laura Rivas 8 , Maite Herraiz 9 , Catalina Garau 10 , Inmaculada Salces 11 , Marta Carrillo-Palau 12 , Luis Bujanda 13 , Adriá López-Fernández 14 , Cristina Alvarez-Urturi 15 , María Jesús López 16 , Cristina Alenda 17 , Pedro Zapater 18 , Francisco Javier Lacueva 19 , Francesc Balaguer 5 , Jose-Luis Soto 3 , Óscar Murcia 4, * and Rodrigo Jover 4, * 1 Servicio de Medicina Digestiva, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Elche, 03203 Alicante, Spain; madopisa@hotmail.com 2 Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Elche, 03203 Alicante, Spain; zrtbns@gmail.com 3 Unidad de Genética Molecular, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, 03203 Alicante, Spain; castillejo.ade@gmail.com (A.C.); sotomartinez.jl@gmail.com (J.-L.S.) 4 Servicio de Medicina Digestiva, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria ISABIAL, 03010 Alicante, Spain; maretagc@gmail.com (M.G.-C.); mirenalustiza92@gmail.com (M.A.) 5 Servicio de Medicina Digestiva, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, IDIBAPS, CIBERehd. University of Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain; asanchezg@clinic.cat (A.S.); LMOREIRA@clinic.cat (L.M.); mpellise@clinic.cat (M.P.); CASTELLS@clinic.cat (A.C.); fprunes@clinic.cat (F.B.) 6 Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitari Parc Taulí, Sabadell, Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa, Terrassa, 08208 Barcelona, Spain; llortgemma@gmail.com (G.L.); cyague@cst.cat (C.Y.) 7 Servicio de Medicina Digestiva, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, 08041 Barcelona, Spain; tramon@santpau.cat (T.R.yC.); AGisbert@santpau.cat (A.G.-B.) 8 Servicio de Medicina Digestiva, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Ourense, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Galicia Sur, CIBERehd, 32005 Ourense, Spain; joaquincubiella@gmail.com (J.C.); Laura.Rivas.Moral@sergas.es (L.R.) 9 Servicio de Medicina Digestiva, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, 31008 Navarra, Spain; mherraizb@unav.es 10 Servicio de Medicina Digestiva, Hospital de Son Llàtzer, 07198 Palma de Mallorca, Spain; cgarau@hsll.es 11 Servicio de Medicina Digestiva, Hospital 12 de Octubre, 28041 Madrid, Spain; isalces@live.com 12 Servicio de Medicina Digestiva, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, 38320 Tenerife, Spain; martacarry@yahoo.es 13 Servicio de Medicina Digestiva, Hospital Donostia/Instituto Biodonostia, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU), 20014 San Sebastián, Spain; luis.bujandafernandezdepierola@osakidetza.eus 14 Unidad de Alto Riesgo y Prevención del Cáncer, Hospital Universitario Vall d’Hebron, 08035 Barcelona, Spain; adlopez@vhio.net 15 Servicio de Medicina Digestiva, Hospital del Mar, 08003 Barcelona, Spain; ACAlvarez@parcdesalutmar.cat 16 Servicio de Medicina Digestiva, Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, 39008 Santandercity, Spain; mariajesuslopez33@gmail.com 17 Servicio de Anatomía Patológica, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria ISABIAL, 03010 Alicante, Spain; alenda.cris@gmail.com 18 Servicio de Farmacología Clínica, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, ISABIAL, CIBERehd, IDiBE, UMH, 03010 Alicante, Spain; zapater.p@gmail.com 19 Servicio de Cirugía general, Hospital General Universitario de Elche, Elche, 03203 Alicante, Spain; fj.lacueva@umh.es * Correspondence: omp_89@hotmail.com (Ó.M.); rodrigojover@gmail.com or jover_rod@gva.es (R.J.); Fax: +34-965-933-468 (Ó.M. & R.J.) Cancers 2020, 12, 2225; doi:10.3390/cancers12082225 www.mdpi.com/journal/cancers Cancers 2020, 12, 2225 2 of 12  Received: 11 July 2020; Accepted: 5 August 2020; Published: 9 August 2020  Abstract: Lynch syndrome (LS) is a common cause of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC). Some CRC patients develop mismatch repair deficiency without germline pathogenic mutation, known as Lynch-like syndrome (LLS). We compared the risk of CRC in first-degree relatives (FDRs) in LLS and LS patients. LLS was diagnosed when tumors showed immunohistochemical loss of MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2; or loss of MLH1 with BRAF wild type; and/or no MLH1 methylation and absence of pathogenic mutation in these genes. CRC and other LS-related neoplasms were followed in patients diagnosed with LS and LLS and among their FDRs. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated for CRC and other neoplasms associated with LS among FDRs of LS and LLS patients. In total, 205 LS (1205 FDRs) and 131 LLS families (698 FDRs) had complete pedigrees. FDRs of patients with LLS had a high incidence of CRC (SIR, 2.08; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.56–2.71), which was significantly lower than that in FDRs of patients with LS (SIR, 4.25; 95% CI, 3.67–4.90; p < 0.001). The risk of developing other neoplasms associated with LS also increased among FDR of LLS patients (SIR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.44–2.80) but was lower than that among FDR of patients with LS (SIR, 5.01, 95% CI, 4.26–5.84; p < 0.001). FDRs with LLS have an increased risk of developing CRC as well as LS-related neoplasms, although this risk is lower than that of families with LS. Thus, their management should take into account this increased risk. Keywords: colorectal cancer; risk; genetic; surveillance 1. Introduction Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most frequent cause of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) [1]. It is characterized by the presence of pathogenic mutations in DNA mismatch (MMR) repair genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2) or EpCAM (epithelial cell adhesion molecule), with an autosomal dominant inheritance [2]. It is mainly characterized by the high risk of developing CRC and endometrial cancer, as well as other neoplasms, namely of the ovaries, urinary tract, stomach, small intestine, pancreas, biliary tract, skin, and brain. Implementation of Jerusalem guidelines, which recommend conducting MMR proteins immunohistochemistry (IHC) in all CRC or endometrial cancers in patients younger than 70 years old [3] or universal screening, has increased the number of patients diagnosed with LS but has also revealed a large number of patients (~30%) who present with tumor microsatellite instability (MSI) or loss-of-expression MMR proteins but without evidence of germline pathogenic mutation in these genes [4]. This condition is known as Lynch-like syndrome (LLS). In this context, it is important to adequately address the existence of variants of unknown significance (VUS) following international guidelines for classification [5–8]. Inadequately classified VUS in MMR genes could also be a cause of LLS. Currently, it is unclear what should be the type of follow-up in these patients and their relatives. A previous study by our group [9] showed that the risk of CRC was lower in families of patients with LLS compared to the relatives of patients with LS but was higher than that found in relatives of patients with sporadic cases. No increase in the risk of LS-related neoplasms was found in this cohort. However, this study had some limitations, mainly the low number of families with LLS cases, which may have led to selection bias in the cohort. The goal of this study was to evaluate, in a large cohort, the risk of developing CRC and other LS-related neoplasms among the family members of patients diagnosed with LLS compared with a cohort of LS families. We also compared the clinical and pathological characteristics of CRC patients with LS and LLS. Cancers 2020, 12, 2225 3 of 12 2. Material and Methods 2.1. Patients and Data Collection Data were extracted from a descriptive, observational, multicenter, nationwide registry (EPICOLON III) on familial CRC, involving 25 Spanish hospitals [10]. We studied a cohort of patients with CRC and LS (with confirmed germline pathogenic mutation in mismatch repair (MMR) genes) and patients with CRC and LLS. LLS is defined by the presence of high MSI (MSI-H) and/or loss of expression of MMR proteins as determined by immunohistochemistry in CRC patients, without MLH1 promoter hypermethylation or evidence of germline pathogenic mutation in the DNA MMR genes or epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM). IHC and/or MSI study of the tumors was performed because of fulfillment of Amsterdam criteria and/or revised Bethesda guidelines [11], or because of universal molecular screening for LS [3]. Patients were investigated according to common protocols [12], and were included since November 2017. If any pathogenic mutation in MMR genes was found, genetic testing was expanded among the first-degree relatives (FDRs) of the index case. We followed up with these patients and their relatives until July 2019, with the purpose of learning about new cases of CRC and other LS-associated tumors between these patients and their relatives. Data on demographic variables, study of CRC, and family history were obtained from the national registry EPICOLON III (www.epicolon.es). All colorectal carcinomas were analyzed for grade, location, Tumor, lymph Nodes, Metastasis (TNM) stage, and for histopathologic features, such as mucinous cell histology, vascular invasion, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, based on morphologic assessment. In all cases, the family history was collected through the cancer pedigrees that included at least one generation backward and forward to the index case, as previously described [9]. All of the patients provided written informed consent. The study was approved by the institutional review boards of the participating hospitals (date: 23 June 2013, ethic code: PI2013073). 2.2. MSI, IHC Staining, and Detection of Germline Mutations MSI and/or IHC analysis was performed in all the CRC patients included in this cohort. MSI status [13,14] and IHC analysis of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 was performed in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue, as previously described [15]. In patients with loss of MLH1, the methylation of MLH1 and/or somatic V600E BRAF mutation status was analyzed. MLH1 methylation analysis was performed using methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MS-MLPA) using the SALSA MS-MLPA kit ME011 Mismatch Repair Genes (MRC-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) [16]. The V600E BRAF mutation was detected by real-time PCR (ABI Prism 7500, Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) using specific TaqMan probes and allelic discrimination software as previously described [17]. Germline mutation analysis was performed in accordance with the results of IHC analysis as previously described [4]. The selection of patients and genes for germline mutation analysis was based on IHC and MSI results. Accordingly, MLH1 and MSH2 mutational analysis was performed in all tumors with MLH1 and MSH2-negative staining. MSH6 germline analysis was done in patients with an isolated lack of MSH6 expression or combined lack of MSH2 and MSH6 not showing MSH2 mutation. Genetic testing for PMS2 was performed in an isolated loss of PMS2 expression tumors. Patients with loss of MSH2 expression with no mutation detected were analyzed for EpCAM rearrangements. In patients showing MSI and whose IHC analysis could not be performed, genetic testing of all four MMR genes (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) was carried out. DNA sequencing was performed to characterize the deletion breakpoints. Germline mutation studies were performed on genomic DNA isolated from peripheral blood leucocytes or from non-tumor colon tissues. Detection of point mutations was conducted using PCR and direct sequencing of the whole coding sequence and intron-exon boundaries of each gene. Large rearrangements (deletions and insertions) were tested by MLPA (MLPA Kits P003: MLH1-MSH2; P248 (MLH1-MSH2 confirmation), P008 (PMS2-MSH6), and P072 (EpCAM) MRC-HOLLAND, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) following the manufacturer’s Cancers 2020, 12, 2225 4 of 12 protocol. Large rearrangements (deletions and insertions) were tested using MLPA according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The results of the genetic analysis were interpreted based on the ACMG Recommendations for Standards for Interpretation of Sequence Variations (2000) and the InSIGHT database [5,7]. 2.3. Calculation of Standardized Incidence Ratio To analyze the family risk of developing CRC or other tumors associated with LS, we included information relative to the FDRs of patients with CRC and LS, regardless of whether or not they were carriers of the mutation, or LLS only in cases with complete pedigrees and information about the ages of all family members, including relatives without cancer. We calculated the standardized incidence ratio (SIR) as the ratio of the observed to expected number of cases diagnosed in the families at the time of inclusion in the EPICOLON III cohort. The expected number of cases was calculated as the sum of the products of the number of person-years for each 5-year age/sex group and the corresponding age/sex-specific incidence rates in Spanish regional registries [18]. The confidence limits were based on Byar’s approximation of the exact Poisson distribution, which is accurate even with small numbers [19]. The index case was excluded for the analysis of family history at the time of diagnosis. We also prospectively analyzed the risk of developing CRC or other neoplasms associated with LS during follow-up in family members of patients with LS and LLS. We considered as LS-related tumors those from the endometrium, ovaries, urinary tract, stomach, small intestine, pancreas, biliary tract, skin, and brain. We followed up with new cases of these tumors in the index patients and their FDRs that appeared since the moment of diagnosis of the index case until July 2019. We included information regarding FDRs who had complete information about the surveillance of FDRs (age, history of neoplasia), excluding the rest due to the absence of information. The pedigrees were updated by asking patients and/or relatives about new cases of cancer after diagnosis of the index case. We included the index case for this analysis, and the appearance of metachronous CRC or a new case of non-colorectal LS-related tumor in the index case was considered a new case in the family. 2.4. Statistical Analysis Regarding the descriptive analysis, the qualitative variables are presented as percentages. The continuous quantitative variables are described from the mean and the standard deviation (SD) or from the median and the interquartile range (IQR), depending on whether or not they followed a normal distribution. For analysis of the association between qualitative variables, the chi-square test was used, followed by the Fisher’s exact test and the Student’s t-test or the Mann–Whitney U test for the quantitative variables. For the contrast of the hypotheses described above, a confidence level (p) < 0.05 was used. The incidence rates of new cases of affected family members of CRC and of non-colonic neoplasms associated with LS were calculated. Next, the incidence rates of CRC or other neoplasms associated with LS were standardized by sex and age using the indirect method. The follow-up times (person-year) for each family member at risk were calculated from 20 years of age to the time of diagnosis of the earliest cancer, age at death, or end of follow-up. The SIR was calculated from the quotient between the observed cases and those expected among the relatives. The number of expected cases was calculated from the sum of the follow-up times (person-year) for age groups with a 5-year interval, and by sex and the corresponding standard incidence rate. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS software (SPSS 19.0, Chicago, IL, USA). 3. Results 3.1. Clinical and Pathology Differences in CRC between LS and LLS Through July 2019, we included 160 patients diagnosed with CRC who met the diagnostic criteria of LLS and 286 patients diagnosed with CRC and LS. A flow chart of patients and FDR included can be Cancers 2020, 12, 2225 5 of 12 seen in Figure 1. The characteristics of both populations are shown in Table 1. Patients with LS were younger at diagnosis of CRC (LS, 48.1 (SD 12.9) vs. LLS, 54.9 (SD 14.2); p = 0.01). We also observed Cancers 2020, 12, xdifferences regarding a higher percentage of patients in the LS group who met the significant 5 of 12 criteria of Amsterdam and/or Bethesda (Amsterdam I and II present in 72.1% in the LS group vs. 11.2% in the met the criteria of Amsterdam and/or Bethesda (Amsterdam I and II present in 72.1% in the LS group LLS group, p = 0.00; Bethesda guidelines: 84.2% in the LS group vs. 64.4% in the LLS group; p = 0.00). vs. 11.2% in the LLS group, p = 0.00; Bethesda guidelines: 84.2% in the LS group vs. 64.4% in the LLS Patients with LLS showed more frequently loss of MLH1/PMS2 expression than LS patients (48.1% vs. group; p = 0.00). Patients with LLS showed more frequently loss of MLH1/PMS2 expression than LS 34.3%; p = 0.004) and less frequently loss of MSH2/MSH6 (26.9% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.001). Regarding patients (48.1% vs. 34.3%; p = 0.004) and less frequently loss of MSH2/MSH6 (26.9% vs. 42.6%; p = patients with LS, 35.3% presented with a mutation in MLH1, 41.3% in MSH2, 14.7% in MSH6, 5.2% in 0.001). Regarding patients with LS, 35.3% presented with a mutation in MLH1, 41.3% in MSH2, 14.7% PMS2, and 3.5% in EpCAM. in MSH6, 5.2% in PMS2, and 3.5% in EpCAM. Figure 1. Flow Figure diagram 1. Flow diagramofofpatients patients and FDR included. and FDR included.FDR, FDR,first-degree first-degree relatives; relatives; LS, LS, Lynch Lynch syndrome; syndrome; LLS, Lynch-like LLS, Lynch-like syndrome; syndrome; CRC, colorectal CRC, colorectal cancer.cancer. We Wediddid not not findfind relevant differences relevant regarding differences the location regarding of theofCRC the location the or TNM CRC stage, stage, or TNM but when but when we we analyzed the pathology features, we only found a higher percentage of lymphocytic analyzed the pathology features, we only found a higher percentage of lymphocytic infiltration in infiltration in the theCRC CRCofofpatients patients with withLLSLLScompared compared to patients to patientswithwith LS (23.1% in LLS LS (23.1% in vs. LLS14.3% in LS,in vs. 14.3% p =LS, p = 0.04). 0.04). However, However, we did not not we did findfind relevant differences relevant regarding differences vascular regarding invasion, vascular grade grade invasion, of differentiation, of differentiation, or the presence or the of mucinous presence of mucinous tumor (Table tumor 1). On (Table 1). the Onother hand,hand, the other significant differences significant were also differences were also observed in relation to the personal history of CRC or other neoplasms observed in relation to the personal history of CRC or other neoplasms associated with LS. associated with LS. Synchronous Synchronous CRC was CRC was present in present in the in the LS group LS9.1% groupof in 9.1% them of in and them theand LLSin the LLS group wasgroup presentwasin present 1.3% (p in = 0.001). 1.3% (p = 0.001). Metachronous CRC developed in 12.9% of the LS group versus 3.1% Metachronous CRC developed in 12.9% of the LS group versus 3.1% of the LLS group (p = 0.001), of the LLS group (p =and 0.001), andof 29.4% 29.4% of patients patients in the inLSthe LS group group had ahad a personal personal history history of other of other tumors tumors associated associated with LS with LS compared to 3.1% of patients in the LLS group (p = 0.00; Table 1). Examples of the pedigrees compared to 3.1% of patients in the LLS group (p = 0.00; Table 1). Examples of the pedigrees of LS and of LS and LLS families can be found in Figure 2. LLS families can be found in Figure 2. Cancers 2020, 12, 2225 6 of 12 Table 1. Characteristics of patients with LS and LLS. Characteristics of Patients LS, n = 286 LLS, n = 160 Female sex 132 (46.1%) 66 (41.3%) Age at CRC diagnosis, median (SD) 48.1 (SD 12.9) 54.9 (SD 14.2) * Reason for IHC Amsterdam I and II criteria 206 (72.1%) 18 (11.2%) * Revised Bethesda guidelines 234 (84.2%) 103 (64.4%) * Immunohistochemistry (IHC), n (%) Loss of MLH1 and PMS2 98 (34.3) 77 (48.1) * Loss of MSH2 and MSH6 122 (42.6) 43 (26.9) * Isolated loss of MSH6 40 (14) 20 (12.5) Isolated loss of PMS2 18 (6.3) 14 (8.8) IHC non-available; MSI-H 8 (2.8) 6 (3.7) Location Right colon 165 (62.7%) 89 (61.4%) Left colon and rectum 98 (37.3%) 56 (38.6%) TNM Stage I and II 159 (55.6%) 80 (60.1%) Histology Poor differentiation 50 (17.5%) 33 (20.6%) Lymphocytic infiltration 41 (14.3%) 37 (23.1%) * Mucinous tumor 88 (30.8%) 46 (28.7%) Vascular invasion 35 (12.2%) 18 (11.3%) Personal history metachronous CRC 37 (12.9%) 5 (3.1%) * synchronous CRC 26 (9.1%) 2 (1.3%) * non-CRC LS tumor 84 (29.4%) 5 (3.1%) * * p < 0.05. SD, standard deviation; CRC, colorectal cancer; LS, Lynch syndrome; LLS, Lynch-like syndrome; MSI-H, microsatellite instability-high, TNM, Tumor, lymph Nodes, Metastasis Cancers 2020, 12, x 6 of 12 A B Figure2.2.Examples Figure Examplesof ofpedigrees pedigrees of of Lynch Lynch syndrome syndrome (A) and and Lynch-like Lynch-like syndrome syndrome(B) (B)families. families.LS, LS, Lynch syndrome; Dx, diagnosis, Y, years. Lynch syndrome; Dx, diagnosis, Y, years. Table 1. Characteristics of patients with LS and LLS. Characteristics of patients LS, n = 286 LLS, n = 160 Female sex 132 (46.1%) 66 (41.3%) Age at CRC diagnosis, median (SD) 48.1 (SD 12.9) 54.9 (SD 14.2) * Reason for IHC Amsterdam I and II criteria 206 (72.1%) 18 (11.2%) * Revised Bethesda guidelines 234 (84.2%) 103 (64.4%) * Cancers 2020, 12, 2225 7 of 12 3.2. Risk of CRC in FDRs of LS and LLS Patients As previously explained in the methods section, for the analysis of family risk of developing CRC or other neoplasms associated with LS, only families with complete information on age and history of neoplasms were included. A total of 205 out of 286 families with LS were included. Regarding LLS patients, this information was obtained in 131 out of 160 families. Finally, a total of 1903 FDRs were included, namely, 1205 in the LS group and 698 in the LLS group (Figure 1). When we analyzed the SIR for CRC between both groups, there was an increased risk of CRC in both LS and LLS families, with the SIR being significantly higher for the relatives of patients with LS compared to those of patients with LLS (SIR for CRC in LS, 4.25; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.67–4.90 vs. SIR for CRC in LLS, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.56–2.71; p < 0.001). The same was observed for LS-associated neoplasms (other than CRC); in both cases, there was an increased risk of these neoplasms, which was also higher in LS (SIR, 5.01; 95% CI, 4.26–5.84) than in LLS (SIR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.44–2.80; p < 0.001) (Table 2). The location of non-CRC neoplasms can be seen in Table 3, a higher frequency of endometrial cancer was detected in LS families (48.4% in LS group vs. 20.0% in the LLS group; p = 0.001). However, the frequency of pancreatic neoplasms was higher in the LLS group (3.3% in LS group vs. 15.0% in the LLS group; p = 0.003). Table 2. SIR of CRC or other neoplasms associated with LS in first-degree relatives of patients with LLS compared with FDR of patient with LS. LS LLS Neoplasms Associated n = 1205 n = 698 with LS p Value Number of Tumors SIR (95% CI) Number of Tumors SIR (95% CI) CRC 191 4.25 (3.67–4.90) 54 2.08 (1.56–2.71) 0.0000 Non-CRC LS-associated 161 5.01 (4.26–5.84) 38 2.04 (1.44–2.80) 0.0000 tumor TOTAL 352 4.57 (4.10–5.07) 92 2.06 (1.66–2.53) 0.0000 p < 0.05. SIR, standardized incidence ratio; LS, Lynch syndrome; LLS, Lynch-like syndrome; CRC, colorectal cancer; CI, confidence interval; FDR, first-degree relatives. Table 3. Non-CRC LS-associated tumors in LS and LLS patients and their FDR. LS Families LLS Families Location of the Tumors p Value Number of Tumors: 184 Number of Tumors: 40 Ovary 20 (10.9%) 5 (12.5%) n.s. Endometrium 89 (48.4%) 8 (20.0%) 0.001 Pancreas 6 (3.3%) 6 (15.0%) 0.003 Stomach 37 (20.1%) 11 (27.5%) n.s. Urinary tract 10 (5.4%) 4 (10%) n.s. Skin 3 (1.6%) 2 (5%) n.s. Small intestine 5 (2.7%) 0 (0%) n.s. Brain 6 (3.3%) 2 (5%) n.s. Biliary tract 8 (4.3%) 2 (5%) n.s. p < 0.05. LS, Lynch syndrome; LLS, Lynch-like syndrome; CRC, colorectal cancer; n.s., no significative. We also conducted a prospective follow-up from the diagnosis of patients with LS or LLS analyzing the new cases of CRC or other neoplasms associated with LS with a median of 3 years (IQR, 1–6) of prospective follow-up. In this analysis, we included information regarding LS patients and their FDRs, and LLS patients and their FDRs. From a total of 1126 FDR of LS patients, 22 cases of CRC (1.9%) were observed during follow-up in front of only 3 cases (0.50%) of the total 587 patients in the group of LLS and FDRs. On the other hand, there were 23 cases that developed other neoplasms associated with LS (2%) during the follow-up between LS patients and their FDRs compared to two new cases in the group of LLS patients and their FDRs (0.3%) (Table 4). Figure 3 shows the Kaplan–Meier chart of this prospective follow-up, showing that LS families had a higher incidence of new cases of LS-related cancers than LLS families (log rank, 0.0001). Cancers 2020, 12, 2225 8 of 12 Cancers 2020, 12, x 8 of 12 Table Table 4. 4. Prospective Prospective appearance appearance of of newnew cases cases of of cancer cancer between between LSLS patients patients and and their their FDR FDR and and LLS LLS patients and their FDR. patients and their FDR. Neoplasms associated with LS LS n =LS n = 1126 1126 LLSnn==587 LLS 587 Neoplasms Associated p Value p Value with LS No. ofNo. of Tumors Tumors No.ofofTumors No. Tumors CRCCRC 22 (1.9%) 22 (1.9%) 3 3(0.5%) (0.5%) 0.019 0.019 Non-CRC Non-CRC 23 (2%)23 (2%) 2 2(0.3%) (0.3%) 0.006 0.006 LS-associated LS-associated tumortumor TOTALTOTAL 45 (3.9%) 45 (3.9%) 5 5(0.8%) (0.8%) 0.000 0.000 p < 0.05. p < 0.05. LS, LS, Lynch Lynch syndrome;LLS, syndrome; LLS, Lynch-like Lynch-likesyndrome; CRC, syndrome; colorectal CRC, cancer;cancer; colorectal FDR, first-degree relatives. FDR, first-degree relatives. Figure Figure 3. 3. Kaplan–Meier Kaplan–Meier curve curve showing showing thethe risk risk incidence incidence of of CRCCRC and and other other LS-associated LS-associated tumors tumors during follow-up in the FDRs of patients with LS and LLS. Log Rank, p = 0.000. during follow-up in the FDRs of patients with LS and LLS. Log Rank, p = 0.000. 4. Discussion 4. Discussion The primary finding of this study was the increased risk of CRC among FDRs of patients The primary finding of this study was the increased risk of CRC among FDRs of patients with with LLS, which was lower than that found for LS families but significantly higher than expected. LLS, which was lower than that found for LS families but significantly higher than expected. In In addition, the risk of LS-related cancer was also increased in LLS families. Our results confirm addition, the risk of LS-related cancer was also increased in LLS families. Our results confirm previous preliminary results, extending the risk of cancer to LS-related neoplasms, and highlights the previous preliminary results, extending the risk of cancer to LS-related neoplasms, and highlights the need for specific surveillance for these patients and their FDRs. These results also emphasize the need need for specific surveillance for these patients and their FDRs. These results also emphasize the need for molecular tools that distinguish between truly hereditary and sporadic cases of LLS. for molecular tools that distinguish between truly hereditary and sporadic cases of LLS. With the implementation of universal tumor screening for LS in all patients with CRC [3], With the implementation of universal tumor screening for LS in all patients with CRC [3], an an increase in the number of patients with LLS has been shown. These patients represent a heterogeneous increase in the number of patients with LLS has been shown. These patients represent a population where sporadic and truly LS cases are mixed [10]. This fact makes the adequate follow-up heterogeneous population where sporadic and truly LS cases are mixed [10]. This fact makes the of these patients and their FDR difficult as, in the majority of cases, they are not appropriately adequate follow-up of these patients and their FDR difficult as, in the majority of cases, they are not diagnosed and classified. There are different explanations for the finding of LLS [10]. The first appropriately diagnosed and classified. There are different explanations for the finding of LLS [10]. potential explanation that should be ruled out is false-positive cases of MSI or IHC. In cases of LLS, The first potential explanation that should be ruled out is false-positive cases of MSI or IHC. In cases the reassurance of these results and performance of both is mandatory, and it has been described that of LLS, the reassurance of these results and performance of both is mandatory, and it has been up to 19% of cases are due to false-positive screening results [20]. Additionally, VUS in MMR genes described that up to 19% of cases are due to false-positive screening results [20]. Additionally, VUS should be adequately addressed. A major challenge in the diagnosis and management of LLS is the in MMR genes should be adequately addressed. A major challenge in the diagnosis and management frequent occurrence of VUS in these genes. Depending on the gene, about 1/5th to 1/3rd of DNA of LLS is the frequent occurrence of VUS in these genes. Depending on the gene, about 1/5th to 1/3rd of DNA sequence variants identified during the course of LS clinical testing are of uncertain significance [21]. Recently, the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumors Cancers 2020, 12, 2225 9 of 12 sequence variants identified during the course of LS clinical testing are of uncertain significance [21]. Recently, the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumors (InSiGHT) developed criteria for the interpretation of the MMR gene variants, with the aim to improve the clinical utility of genetic testing for LS. Adequate classification of VUS following the InSiGHT criteria is another important step in the correct diagnosis of LLS cases [7]. Once confirmed that this is an LLS case, there are two possibilities: Cases can be due to germline mutations that have not been detected, or can be sporadic cases due to biallelic somatic inactivation of MMR genes or other genes related to the MMR system. This inactivation can be induced by double hit somatic mutations in these genes, inactivation due to loss of heterozygosity, or a combination of both. Additionally, mosaicism in MMR genes can be a potential cause for that inactivation. Different authors have proposed the investigation of double somatic mutations in MMR and other genes that could explain sporadic CRC cases with LLS, and findings of somatic mutations have been found in a variable proportion of cases, ranging from 22% to 69% [20,22–25]. Although, in recent years, there has been an increase in the use of multigene panel testing in LLS, the best diagnostic strategy to perform in patients with LLS has not been established, with no specific methodology uniformly recommended. Moreover, the addition of somatic mutations to the diagnostic algorithm of LS has not been validated in research studies. Finally, a relationship between these somatic mutations and germline inactivation of still unknown genes related to MMR deficiency has not yet been fully ruled out, and only a germline exome approach or a clinical follow-up validation will confirm the sporadic behavior of these LLS tumors with somatic mutations [10]. Additionally, as previously reported, there are no clinical or histopathological characteristics that can help differentiate between potentially hereditary or sporadic cases [10,26]; neither family history nor age at diagnosis can differentiate between cases, and with no accepted and validated molecular tool for making this distinction, LLS patients and families must be managed as a group. Moreover, in previous studies that also used somatic mutations to classify LLS patients as hereditary or sporadic, authors did not find any clinical or pathological characteristics that were able to differentiate between the two populations [27,28]. In this study, which included a large cohort of patients with LS and LLS diagnosed with CRC, we compared the clinical and molecular characteristics of these patients. Significant differences were observed regarding the age of CRC diagnosis, which was higher in patients with LLS, whereas a higher percentage of compliance of Amsterdam and Bethesda criteria was observed in patients with LS. It is worth mentioning, with respect to the histological characteristics, that a greater significant percentage of lymphocytic infiltration occurred in patients with LLS, although this finding has been described as a typical characteristic of MMR-deficient tumors, irrespective of their hereditary or sporadic origin. In addition, the increase in metachronous and synchronous CRC present in patients with LS was also significant, as well as the development of other malignancies associated with LS. On the other hand, as mentioned above, although the risk of CRC or other neoplasms associated with LS among family members of patients with LLS was increased, it was still lower than the risk presented by family members of patients with LS. Similar results were observed in the study previously conducted by Rodriguez-Soler [9] and also by Win et al. [29]. Our results support establishing surveillance for the FDRs of patients with LLS. Cancers found in this follow-up were significantly more frequent in LS than in LLS families; however, the increased risk found in LLS still justifies this surveillance. The main limitation of this study is the lack of molecular information about somatic mutations in the LLS cases. Therefore, a more accurate estimate of cancer risk cannot be performed among the subgroups of LLS, namely patients with putative germline mutations that cannot be detected due to the limitations of the technology and those with the presence of somatic biallelic inactivation and probably sporadic origin. Other limitations of our study were the possibility of underreporting or misreporting cancers because our information was not always confirmed with objective clinical and pathologic data. However, we believe this limitation is minor because it would affect the LLS group to the same extent as the other groups. Another limitation of our study was the lack of a homogeneous follow-up for FDRs of patients with LLS between the participant centers, which could have led to Cancers 2020, 12, 2225 10 of 12 less follow-up for LLS than LS patients and could potentially explain the reduction in the number of incident cases between LLS families. Furthermore, the prospective follow-up time was too short, and longer periods could better demonstrate the efficacy of surveillance in these LLS families. It is also possible that the lack of a clear diagnosis decreased the adherence to follow-up in the LLS families [30]. On the other hand, the strength of our study was the large cohort of LS and LLS patients and families with carefully updated pedigrees. This approach provided robustness to our data in terms of potential applicability to general practice. In summary, in this large cohort study, we confirmed that the FDRs of patients with LLS have a higher risk of developing CRC and other LS-related neoplasms, although this risk was significantly lower than that found in LS families. These results highlight the need to develop molecular tools able to clearly separate truly hereditary from sporadic cases. Meanwhile, LLS should be considered a high-risk disease and patients and their FDRs should be followed up accordingly. Thus, because, as a group, the risk of CRC in FDR of patients with LLS was higher than expected, we recommend screening for these relatives, as well as gynecological examination, until the hereditary origin of the tumor can be effectively ruled out. 5. Conclusions First-degree relatives of Lynch-like syndrome have an increased risk of developing LS-related neoplasms. These data support the need for applying preventive measures for these patients and their relatives. Author Contributions: Study concept, design and drafting of the manuscript: M.D.P., A.C. (Adela Castillejo), J.-L.S., R.J. Acquisition of data: M.D.P., A.B.S.-H., A.C. (Adela Castillejo), Ó.M., M.G.-C., M.A., A.S., L.M., M.P., A.C. (Antoni Castells), G.L., C.Y., T.R.yC., A.G.-B., J.C., L.R., M.H., C.G., I.S., M.C.-P., L.B., A.L.-F., C.A.-U., M.J.L., C.A., P.Z., F.J.L., F.B., J.-L.S., R.J. Analysis, interpretation of data, and statistical analysis: M.D.P., R.J. Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: all authors. All authors had read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This work was supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI08/0726, INT-09/208, PI11/2630, INT-12-078, INT13-196, PI14/01386, PI17/01756), Fundación de Investigación Biomédica de la Comunidad Valenciana–Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de Alicante Foundation (UGP-14-120, UGP-13-221, UGP-14-265), and the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (Fundación Científica GCB13131592CAST). Mar Giner-Calabuig received a pre-doctoral grant from Conselleria d’Educació de la Generalitat Valenciana (VALi+d. EXP ACIF/2010/018, ACIF/2016/002). Miren Alustiza received a pre-doctoral grant from Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de Alicante ISABIAL. Oscar Murcia received a grant Rio-Hortega from Instituto de Salud Carlos III. Asociación para la Investigación en Gastroenterología de la Provincia de Alicante (AIGPA), a private association that promotes research in gastrointestinal diseases in Alicante, also supported the logistical aspects of the study. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that no competing interests exist. Abbreviations CI confidence interval CRC colorectal cancer FDR first-degree relatives IHC Immunohistochemistry IQR interquartile range LLS Lynch-like syndrome LS Lynch syndrome MMR mismatch repair MSI microsatellite instability SD standard deviation SIR standardized incidence ratios TNM Tumor, lymph Nodes, Metastasis Cancers 2020, 12, 2225 11 of 12 References 1. Lynch, H.; De La Chapelle, A. Hereditary Colorectal Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 348, 919–932. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 2. Bonadona, V.; Bonaiti, B.; Olschwang, S.; Grandjouan, S.; Huiart, L.; Longy, M.; Guimbaud, R.; Buecher, B.; Bignon, Y.-J.; Caron, O.; et al. Cancer Risks Associated With Germline Mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 Genes in Lynch Syndrome. JAMA 2011, 305, 2304–2310. [CrossRef] 3. Boland, C.R.; Shike, M. Report From the Jerusalem Workshop on Lynch Syndrome-Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2010, 138, 2197.e1–2197.e7. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 4. Perez-Carbonell, L.; Ruiz-Ponte, C.; Guarinos, C.; Alenda, C.; Payá, A.; Brea, A.; Egoavil, C.M.; Castillejo, A.; Bessa, X.; Xicola, R.M.; et al. Comparison between universal molecular screening for Lynch syndrome and revised Bethesda guidelines in a large population-based cohort of patients with colorectal cancer. Gut 2011, 61, 865–872. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Ou, J.; Niessen, R.C.; Vonk, J.; Westers, H.; Hofstra, R.M.; Sijmons, R.H. A database to support the interpretation of human mismatch repair gene variants. Hum. Mutat. 2008, 29, 1337–1341. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 6. Plon, S.E.; Eccles, D.M.; Easton, D.; Foulkes, W.D.; Genuardi, M.; Greenblatt, M.S.; Hogervorst, F.B.; Hoogerbrugge, N.; Spurdle, A.; Tavtigian, S.V.; et al. Sequence variant classification and reporting: Recommendations for improving the interpretation of cancer susceptibility genetic test results. Hum. Mutat. 2008, 29, 1282–1291. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 7. Thompson, B.A.; Insight, O.B.O.; Spurdle, A.; Plazzer, J.-P.; Greenblatt, M.S.; Akagi, K.; Al-Mulla, F.; Bapat, B.; Bernstein, I.; Capella, G.; et al. Application of a 5-tiered scheme for standardized classification of 2,360 unique mismatch repair gene variants in the InSiGHT locus-specific database. Nat. Genet. 2013, 46, 107–115. [CrossRef] 8. Tricarico, R.; Kasela, M.; Mareni, C.; Thompson, B.A.; Drouet, A.; Staderini, L.; Gorelli, G.; Crucianelli, F.; Ingrosso, V.; Kantelinen, J.; et al. Assessment of the InSiGHT Interpretation Criteria for the Clinical Classification of 24MLH1andMSH2Gene Variants. Hum. Mutat. 2016, 38, 64–77. [CrossRef] 9. Rodríguez–Soler, M.; Pérez–Carbonell, L.; Guarinos, C.; Zapater, P.; Castillejo, A.; Barbera, V.M.; Juarez, M.; Bessa, X.; Xicola, R.M.; Clofent, J.; et al. Risk of Cancer in Cases of Suspected Lynch Syndrome Without Germline Mutation. Gastroenterology 2013, 144, 926–932.e1. [CrossRef] 10. Picó, M.D.; Castillejo, A.; Murcia, O.; Giner-Calabuig, M.; Alustiza, M.; Sánchez, A.; Moreira, L.; Pellise, M.; Castells, A.; Carrillo-Palau, M.; et al. Clinical and Pathological Characterization of Lynch-Like Syndrome. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 18, 368–374.e1. [CrossRef] 11. Umar, A.; Boland, C.R.; Terdiman, J.P.; Syngal, S.; Chapelle, A.D.L.; Rüschoff, J.; Fishel, R.; Lindor, N.M.; Burgart, L.J.; Hamelin, R.; et al. Revised Bethesda Guidelines for Hereditary Nonpolyposis Colorectal Cancer (Lynch Syndrome) and Microsatellite Instability. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2004, 96, 261–268. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 12. Garcia, M.A.; Marzo, M.; Mascort, J.; Quintero, E.; García-Alfonso, P.; López-Ibor, C.; Castells, A.; Segura, P.P. Prevención del cáncer colorrectal. Gastroenterología y Hepatología 2009, 32, 137–139. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 13. Suraweera, N.; Duval, A.; Reperant, M.; Vaury, C.; Furlan, D.; Leroy, K.; Seruca, R.; Iacopetta, B.; Hamelin, R. Evaluation of tumor microsatellite instability using five quasimonomorphic mononucleotide repeats and pentaplex PCR. Gastroenterology 2002, 123, 1804–1811. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Xicola, R.M.; Llor, X.; Pons, E.; Castells, A.; Alenda, C.; Piñol, V.; Andreu, M.; Castellvi-Bel, S.; Payá, A.; Jover, R.; et al. Performance of Different Microsatellite Marker Panels for Detection of Mismatch Repair–Deficient Colorectal Tumors. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2007, 99, 244–252. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Jover, R.; Alenda, C.; Poveda, M.J.; Peiró, G.; López, F.I.A.; Pérez-Mateo, M.; Payá, A. Defective Mismatch-Repair Colorectal Cancer Clinicopathologic Characteristics and Usefulness of Immunohistochemical Analysis for Diagnosis. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2004, 122, 389–394. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 16. Pérez-Carbonell, L.; Alenda, C.; Payá, A.; Castillejo, A.; Barberá, V.M.; Guillen, C.; Rojas, E.; Acame, N.; Gutiérrez-Aviñó, F.J.; Castells, A.; et al. Methylation Analysis of MLH1 Improves the Selection of Patients for Genetic Testing in Lynch Syndrome. J. Mol. Diagn. 2010, 12, 498–504. [CrossRef] 17. Benlloch, S.; Payá, A.; Alenda, C.; Bessa, X.; Andreu, M.; Jover, R.; Castells, A.; Llor, X.; Aranda, F.; Massutí, B. Detection of BRAF V600E Mutation in Colorectal Cancer. J. Mol. Diagn. 2006, 8, 540–543. [CrossRef] Cancers 2020, 12, 2225 12 of 12 18. Chirlaque-Lopez, M.D. Murciasalud. Available online: https://www.murciasalud.es/ (accessed on 31 July 2019). (In Spanish) 19. Breslow, N.E.; Day, N.E. Statistical methods in cancer research. IARC Workshop 25–27 May 1983. IARC Sci. Publ. 1987, 82, 1–406. 20. Haraldsdottir, S.; Hampel, H.; Tomsic, J.; Frankel, W.L.; Pearlman, R.; De La Chapelle, A.; Pritchard, C.C. Colon and Endometrial Cancers With Mismatch Repair Deficiency Can Arise From Somatic, Rather Than Germline, Mutations. Gastroenterology 2014, 147, 1308–1316.e1. [CrossRef] 21. Sijmons, R.H.; Greenblatt, M.S.; Genuardi, M. Gene variants of unknown clinical significance in Lynch syndrome. An introduction for clinicians. Fam. Cancer 2013, 12, 181–187. [CrossRef] 22. Sourrouille, I.; Coulet, F.; Lefevre, J.H.; Colas, C.; Eyries, M.; Svrcek, M.; Bardier-Dupas, A.; Parc, Y.; Soubrier, F. Somatic mosaicism and double somatic hits can lead to MSI colorectal tumors. Fam. Cancer 2012, 12, 27–33. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 23. Mensenkamp, A.R.; Vogelaar, I.; Van Zelst–Stams, W.A.; Goossens, M.; Ouchene, H.; Hendriks–Cornelissen, S.J.; Kwint, M.P.; Hoogerbrugge, N.; Nagtegaal, I.; Ligtenberg, M.J. Somatic Mutations in MLH1 and MSH2 Are a Frequent Cause of Mismatch-Repair Deficiency in Lynch Syndrome-Like Tumors. Gastroenterology 2014, 146, 643–646.e8. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 24. Geurts-Giele, W.R.; Leenen, C.H.; Dubbink, H.J.; Meijssen, I.C.; Post, E.; Sleddens, H.F.; Kuipers, E.J.; Goverde, A.; Ouweland, A.M.V.D.; Van Lier, M.G.; et al. Somatic aberrations of mismatch repair genes as a cause of microsatellite-unstable cancers. J. Pathol. 2014, 234, 548–559. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 25. Hampel, H.; Pearlman, R.; Beightol, M.; Zhao, W.J.; Jones, D.; Frankel, W.L.; Goodfellow, P.J.; Yilmaz, A.; Miller, K.; Bacher, J.; et al. Assessment of Tumor Sequencing as a Replacement for Lynch Syndrome Screening and Current Molecular Tests for Patients With Colorectal Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2018, 4, 806–813. [CrossRef] 26. Pearlman, R.; Haraldsdottir, S.; De La Chapelle, A.; Jonasson, J.G.; Liyanarachchi, S.; Frankel, W.L.; Rafnar, T.; Stefansson, K.; Pritchard, C.C.; Hampel, H. Clinical characteristics of patients with colorectal cancer with double somatic mismatch repair mutations compared with Lynch syndrome. J. Med. Genet. 2019, 56, 462–470. [CrossRef] 27. Hemminger, J.A.; Pearlman, R.; Haraldsdottir, S.; Knight, D.; Jónasson, J.G.; Pritchard, C.C.; Hampel, H.; Frankel, W.L. Histology of colorectal adenocarcinoma with double somatic mismatch-repair mutations is indistinguishable from those caused by Lynch syndrome. Hum. Pathol. 2018, 78, 125–130. [CrossRef] 28. Mas-Moya, J.; Dudley, B.; Brand, R.E.; Thull, D.; Bahary, N.; Nikiforova, M.N.; Pai, R.K. Clinicopathological comparison of colorectal and endometrial carcinomas in patients with Lynch-like syndrome versus patients with Lynch syndrome. Hum. Pathol. 2015, 46, 1616–1625. [CrossRef] 29. Win, A.K.; Buchanan, D.D.; Rosty, C.; Maclnnis, R.; Dowty, J.G.; Dite, G.; Giles, G.G.; Southey, M.C.; Young, J.P.; Clendenning, M.; et al. Role of tumour molecular and pathology features to estimate colorectal cancer risk for first-degree relatives. Gut 2014, 64, 101–110. [CrossRef] 30. Carayol, J.; Khlat, M.; Maccario, J.; Bonaïti-Pellié, C. Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer: Current risks of colorectal cancer largely overestimated. J. Med. Genet. 2002, 39, 335–339. [CrossRef] © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).