Evaluating the Utility of Clinical Criteria for the Identification of Lynch Syndrome among Endometrial Cancer Patients

Background: Lynch Syndrome (LS) is a familial cancer syndrome with a high prevalence of colorectal and endometrial carcinomas among affected family members. Clinical criteria, developed from information obtained from familial colorectal cancer registries, have been generated to identify individuals at elevated risk for having LS. In 2007, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) codified criteria to assist in identifying women presenting with gynecologic cancers at elevated risk for having LS. These criteria have not been validated in a population-based setting. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively identified 412, unselected endometrial cancer cases. Clinical and pathologic information were obtained from the electronic medical record, and all tumors were tested for expression of the DNA mismatch repair proteins through immunohistochemistry. Tumors exhibiting loss of MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2 were designated as probable Lynch Syndrome (PLS). For tumors exhibiting immunohistochemical loss of MLH1, we used the PCR-based MLH1 methylation assay to delineate PLS tumors from sporadic tumors. Samples lacking methylation of the MLH1 promoter were also designated as PLS. The sensitivity and specificity for SGO criteria for detecting PLS tumors was calculated. We compared clinical and pathologic features of sporadic tumors and PLS tumors. A simplified cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed comparing the direct costs of utilizing SGO criteria vs. universal tumor testing. Results: In our cohort, 43/408 (10.5%) of endometrial carcinomas were designated as PLS. The sensitivity and specificity of SGO criteria to identify PLS cases were 32.7 and 77%, respectively. Multivariate analysis of clinical and pathologic parameters failed to identify statistically significant differences between sporadic and PLS tumors with the exception of tumors arising from the lower uterine segment. These tumors were more likely to occur in PLS tumors. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed clinical criteria and universal testing strategies cost $6,235.27/PLS case identified and $5,970.38/PLS case identified, respectively. Conclusions: SGO 5-10% criteria successfully identify PLS cases among women who are young or have significant family history of LS related tumors. However, a larger proportion of PLS cases occurring at older ages with less significant family history are not detected by this screening strategy. Compared to SGO clinical criteria, universal tumor testing is a cost effective strategy to identify women presenting with endometrial cancer who are at elevated risk for having LS.