Objective: Estimates of cancer risk and the effects of surveillance in Lynch syndrome have been subject to bias, partly through reliance on retrospective studies. We sought to establish more robust estimates in patients undergoing prospective cancer surveillance. Design: We undertook a multicentre study of patients carrying Lynch syndrome-associated mutations affecting MLH1 , MSH2 , MSH6 or PMS2 . Standardised information on surveillance, cancers and outcomes were collated in an Oracle relational database and analysed by age, sex and mutated gene. Results: 1942 mutation carriers without previous cancer had follow-up including colonoscopic surveillance for 13 782 observation years. 314 patients developed cancer, mostly colorectal (n=151), endometrial (n=72) and ovarian (n=19). Cancers were detected from 25 years onwards in MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers, and from about 40 years in MSH6 and PMS2 carriers. Among first cancer detected in each patient the colorectal cancer cumulative incidences at 70 years by gene were 46%, 35%, 20% and 10% for MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2 mutation carriers, respectively. The equivalent cumulative incidences for endometrial cancer were 34%, 51%, 49% and 24%; and for ovarian cancer 11%, 15%, 0% and 0%. Ten-year crude survival was 87% after any cancer, 91% if the first cancer was colorectal, 98% if endometrial and 89% if ovarian. Conclusions: The four Lynch syndrome-associated genes had different penetrance and expression. Colorectal cancer occurred frequently despite colonoscopic surveillance but resulted in few deaths. Using our data, a website has been established at http://LScarisk.org enabling calculation of cumulative cancer risks as an aid to genetic counselling in Lynch syndrome.

Objective: Today most patients with Lynch syndrome (LS) survive their first cancer. There is limited information on the incidences and outcome of subsequent cancers. The present study addresses three questions: (i) what is the cumulative incidence of a subsequent cancer; (ii) in which organs do subsequent cancers occur; and (iii) what is the survival following these cancers? Design: Information was collated on prospectively organised surveillance and prospectively observed outcomes in patients with LS who had cancer prior to inclusion and analysed by age, gender and genetic variants. Results: 1273 patients with LS from 10 countries were followed up for 7753 observation years. 318 patients (25.7%) developed 341 first subsequent cancers, including colorectal (n=147, 43%), upper GI, pancreas or bile duct (n=37, 11%) and urinary tract (n=32, 10%). The cumulative incidences for any subsequent cancer from age 40 to age 70 years were 73% for pathogenic MLH1 (path_MLH1), 76% for path_MSH2 carriers and 52% for path_MSH6 carriers, and for colorectal cancer (CRC) the cumulative incidences were 46%, 48% and 23%, respectively. Crude survival after any subsequent cancer was 82% (95% CI 76% to 87%) and 10-year crude survival after CRC was 91% (95% CI 83% to 95%). Conclusions: Relative incidence of subsequent cancer compared with incidence of first cancer was slightly but insignificantly higher than cancer incidence in patients with LS without previous cancer (range 0.94–1.49). The favourable survival after subsequent cancers validated continued follow-up to prevent death from cancer. The interactive website http://lscarisk.org was expanded to calculate the risks by gender, genetic variant and age for subsequent cancer for any patient with LS with previous cancer.

Objective: To compare colorectal cancer (CRC) incidences in carriers of pathogenic variants of the MMR genes in the PLSD and IMRC cohorts, of which only the former included mandatory colonoscopy surveillance for all participants. Methods: CRC incidences were calculated in an intervention group comprising a cohort of confirmed carriers of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes (path_MMR) followed prospectively by the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database (PLSD). All had colonoscopy surveillance, with polypectomy when polyps were identified. Comparison was made with a retrospective cohort reported by the International Mismatch Repair Consortium (IMRC). This comprised confirmed and inferred path_MMR carriers who were first- or second-degree relatives of Lynch syndrome probands. Results: In the PLSD, 8,153 subjects had follow-up colonoscopy surveillance for a total of 67,604 years and 578 carriers had CRC diagnosed. Average cumulative incidences of CRC in path_MLH1 carriers at 70 years of age were 52% in males and 41% in females; for path_MSH2 50% and 39%; for path_MSH6 13% and 17% and for path_PMS2 11% and 8%. In contrast, in the IMRC cohort, corresponding cumulative incidences were 40% and 27%; 34% and 23%; 16% and 8% and 7% and 6%. Comparing just the European carriers in the two series gave similar findings. Numbers in the PLSD series did not allow comparisons of carriers from other continents separately. Cumulative incidences at 25 years were < 1% in all retrospective groups. Conclusions: Prospectively observed CRC incidences (PLSD) in path_MLH1 and path_MSH2 carriers undergoing colonoscopy surveillance and polypectomy were higher than in the retrospective (IMRC) series, and were not reduced in path_MSH6 carriers. These findings were the opposite to those expected. CRC point incidence before 50 years of age was reduced in path_PMS2 carriers subjected to colonoscopy, but not significantly so.

The aims of the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database (PLSD) are to provide empirical prospectively observed data on the incidences of cancer in different organs, survival following cancer and the effects of interventions in carriers of pathogenic variants of the mismatch repair genes (path_MMR) categorized by age, gene and gender. Although PLSD is assumption-free, as with any study the ascertainment procedures used to identify the study cohort will introduce selection biases which have to be declared and considered in detail in order to provide robust and valid results. This paper provides a commentary on the methods used and considers how results from the PLSD reports should be interpreted. A number of the results from PLSD were novel and some in conflict with previous assumptions. Notably, colonoscopic surveillance did not prevent colo-rectal cancer, survival after colo-rectal, endometrial and ovarian cancer was good, no survival gain was observed with more frequent colonoscopy, new causes of cancer-related death were observed in survivors of first cancers due to later cancers in other organs, variants in the different MMR genes caused distinct multi-cancer syndromes characterized by different penetrance and phenotypes. The www.PLSD.eu website together with the InSiGHT database website (https://www.insight-group.org/variants/databases/) now facilitate evidence-based personalized precision health care for individual carriers at increased risk of cancer. The arguments are summarized in a final discussion on how to conceptualize current knowledge for the different practical purposes of treating cancers, genetic counselling and prevention, and for understanding /research on carcinogenetic mechanisms.

Recent epidemiological evidence shows that colorectal cancer (CRC) continues to occur in carriers of pathogenic mismatch repair (path_MMR) variants despite frequent colonoscopy surveillance in expert centres. This observation conflicts with the paradigm that removal of all visible polyps should prevent the vast majority of CRC in path_MMR carriers, provided the screening interval is sufficiently short and colonoscopic practice is optimal. To inform the debate, we examined, in the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database (PLSD), whether the time since last colonoscopy was associated with the pathological stage at which CRC was diagnosed during prospective surveillance. Path_MMR carriers were recruited for prospective surveillance by colonoscopy. Only variants scored by the InSiGHT Variant Interpretation Committee as class 4 and 5 (clinically actionable) were included. CRCs detected at the first planned colonoscopy, or within one year of this, were excluded as prevalent cancers. Stage at diagnosis and interval between last prospective surveillance colonoscopy and diagnosis were available for 209 patients with 218 CRCs, including 162 path_MLH1, 45 path_MSH2, 10 path_MSH6 and 1 path_PMS2 carriers. The numbers of cancers detected within < 1.5, 1.5–2.5, 2.5–3.5 and at > 3.5 years since last colonoscopy were 36, 93, 56 and 33, respectively. Among these, 16.7, 19.4, 9.9 and 15.1% were stage III–IV, respectively (p = 0.34). The cancers detected more than 2.5 years after the last colonoscopy were not more advanced than those diagnosed earlier (p = 0.14). The CRC stage and interval since last colonoscopy were not correlated, which is in conflict with the accelerated adenoma-carcinoma paradigm. We have previously reported that more frequent colonoscopy is not associated with lower incidence of CRC in path_MMR carriers as was expected. In contrast, point estimates showed a higher incidence with shorter intervals between examinations, a situation that may parallel to over-diagnosis in breast cancer screening. Our findings raise the possibility that some CRCs in path_MMR carriers may spontaneously disappear: the host immune response may not only remove CRC precursor lesions in path_MMR carriers, but may remove infiltrating cancers as well. If confirmed, our suggested interpretation will have a bearing on surveillance policy for path_MMR carriers.

We have previously reported a high incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in carriers of pathogenic MLH1 variants (path_MLH1) despite follow-up with colonoscopy including polypectomy. The cohort included Finnish carriers enrolled in 3-yearly colonoscopy (n = 505; 4625 observation years) and carriers from other countries enrolled in colonoscopy 2-yearly or more frequently (n = 439; 3299 observation years). We examined whether the longer interval between colonoscopies in Finland could explain the high incidence of CRC and whether disease expression correlated with differences in population CRC incidence. Cumulative CRC incidences in carriers of path_MLH1 at 70-years of age were 41% for males and 36% for females in the Finnish series and 58% and 55% in the non-Finnish series, respectively (p > 0.05). Mean time from last colonoscopy to CRC was 32.7 months in the Finnish compared to 31.0 months in the non-Finnish (p > 0.05) and was therefore unaffected by the recommended colonoscopy interval. Differences in population incidence of CRC could not explain the lower point estimates for CRC in the Finnish series. Ten-year overall survival after CRC was similar for the Finnish and non-Finnish series (88% and 91%, respectively; p > 0.05). The hypothesis that the high incidence of CRC in path_MLH1 carriers was caused by a higher incidence in the Finnish series was not valid. We discuss whether the results were influenced by methodological shortcomings in our study or whether the assumption that a shorter interval between colonoscopies leads to a lower CRC incidence may be wrong. This second possibility is intriguing, because it suggests the dogma that CRC in path_MLH1 carriers develops from polyps that can be detected at colonoscopy and removed to prevent CRC may be erroneous. In view of the excellent 10-year overall survival in the Finnish and non-Finnish series we remain strong advocates of current surveillance practices for those with LS pending studies that will inform new recommendations on the best surveillance interval.