PubMed HealthSearch

Biomedical subjects

Bengt Glimelius

Publications and source records attributed to Bengt Glimelius.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Heterozygous germline mutations in MSH3, and probably MLH3, act as classical tumour suppressors, leading to excess somatic deletion mutations, signature ID4 and increased colorectal cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: MSH3 and MLH3 are non-canonical DNA mismatch repair genes, involved in repairing insertion-deletion mutations. Colorectal cancer (CRC) and adenomas have been reported in patients with bi-allelic germline MSH3 mutations, and in a very few bi-allelic MLH3 mutation carriers. OBJECTIVES: We hypothesised that germline loss-of-function MSH3 and MLH3 mutations were akin to constitutional mismatch repair deficiency (cMMRd) and Lynch syndrome, such that CRC could result from either bi-allelic germline mutations or heterozygous germline mutations after second hits. DESIGN: About 12 000 CRC and multiple polyp cases and 460&#x2009;000 controls were studied. 2023 patients underwent cancer genome sequencing. RESULTS: One CRC/multiple polyp case had bi-allelic MSH3 mutations and another, bi-allelic MLH3 mutations. MSH3 and MLH3 germline heterozygotes had an increased risk of CRC (2.2-fold, p=6.6&#xd7;10-5&#x2009;and 1.6-fold, p=0.028, respectively), owing to somatic 'second hits' that inactivated the wildtype allele. Single second hits sometimes inactivated both MSH3 and the nearby APC gene. All CRCs with MSH3 or MLH3 deficiency were microsatellite-stable but hypermutant. Deletions of &#x2265;2&#x2009;bp were particularly increased (~12-fold) and signature ID4 was usually present (p<0.0001). CRCs from heterozygotes without 'second hits' showed no hypermutation. CONCLUSION: The phenotypes of bi-allelic MSH3 and MLH3 mutation carriers resemble some patients with cMMRd. Heterozygous germline MSH3 and MLH3 alleles have incomplete penetrance, but increase CRC risk via hypermutation, phenotypically resembling PMS2-mutant Lynch syndrome. A causal association with specific mutations has not previously been reported for ID4 in human tumours. ID4 probably does not have a single aetiology, but can result from MSH3 or MLH3 deficiency.

COLONIC POLYPS

Treatment of localized rectal cancer in the Nordic countries-comparison of Nordic to Dutch, ESMO, and NCCN guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer treatment in Nordic countries has traditionally differed, especially regarding neoadjuvant treatment. The aim of this review is to give an overview of the current rectal cancer guidelines in the Nordics and compare these to international guidelines. METHODS: Oncologists and colorectal surgeons from the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden) and the Netherlands were invited to participate in this narrative review. Two consensus meetings were held to agree on the content. All authors provided recommendations from their national guidelines. In addition, recommendations from the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and from the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines were extracted. RESULTS: Several differences between the included guidelines were identified. The radiological "sigmoid take-off" definition for the upper margin of the rectum has been adapted in Denmark and the Netherlands, whereas the other guidelines rely on distance from the anal verge on rigid sigmoidoscopy. Indications for direct surgery vary considerably, where the NCCN guidelines recommend more aggressive neoadjuvant treatment, primarily total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), the Nordic and European guidelines open for direct surgery more often, and reserve especially TNT for high-risk cases. European countries more often recommend short-course radiotherapy, whereas NCCN maintains chemoradiotherapy as the mainstay. Whereas intentional and opportunistic organ preservation is an established part of the Dutch, NCCN, and ESMO guidelines, its use is mostly restricted to clinical trials in the Nordics. The Nordics and the Netherlands are restrictive in terms of adjuvant treatment, which is frequently recommended in ESMO and NCCN. Whereas neoadjuvant immunotherapy is recommended for mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) rectal cancer in NCCN, this use is off-label in Europe and not routinely recommended. CONCLUSION: Although all guidelines rely on the same evidence, there are considerable differences, especially in the indications and type of oncologic treatment, both in the neoadjuvant and in the adjuvant setting.

Rectal Neoplasms