MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP) was first described in 2002. It is an autosomal recessive condition associated with germline pathogenic variants of both MUTYH alleles. In 2011, a group of French experts reviewed the available data on this syndrome and established recommendations concerning the indications and strategies for molecular analysis of the MUTYH gene in index cases and their relatives, as well as the clinical management of affected individuals under the auspices of the French Institut National du Cancer (INCa). Some of these recommendations have become obsolete as a result of recent progress, especially those concerning the molecular strategy for MUTYH testing, as this gene has recently been included in a consensus panel of 14 colorectal cancer predisposition genes, justifying revision of the previous report. We report here the revised version of this work, which successively considers the phenotype and tumor risks associated with this genotype, differential diagnoses, criteria and strategy for molecular genetic testing and recommendations for the management of affected individuals. We also discuss the phenotype and tumor risks associated with monoallelic pathogenic variants of MUTYH.

MUTYH-associated polyposis (MUTYH-associated polyposis, MAP) is an autosomal recessive inheritance disorder related to bi-allelic constitutional pathogenic variants of the MUTYH gene which was first described in 2002. In 2011, a group of French experts composed of clinicians and biologists, performed a summary of the available data on this condition and drew up recommendations concerning the indications and the modalities of molecular analysis of the MUTYH gene in index cases and their relatives, as well as the management of affected individuals. In view of recent developments, some recommendations have become obsolete, in particular with regard to the molecular analysis strategy since MUTYH gene has been recently included in a consensus panel of 14 genes predisposing to colorectal cancer. This led us to revise all the points of the previous expertise. We report here the revised version of this work which successively considers the phenotype and the tumor risks associated with this genotype, the differential diagnoses, the indication criteria and the strategy of the molecular analysis and the recommendations for the management of affected individuals. We also discuss the phenotype and the tumor risks associated with mono-allelic pathogenic variants of MUTYH gene.

In this Annual Review Issue of The Journal of Pathology, we present 15 invited reviews on topical aspects of pathology, ranging from the impacts of the microbiome in human disease through mechanisms of cell death and autophagy to recent advances in immunity and the uses of genomics for understanding, classifying and treating human cancers. Each of the reviews is authored by experts in their fields and our intention is to provide comprehensive updates in specific areas of pathology in which there has been considerable recent progress. Copyright © 2019 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) is the most common hereditary colon cancer syndrome, accounting for 3-5% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases, and it is associated with the development of other cancers. Early detection of individuals with LS is relevant, since they can take advantage of life-saving intensive care surveillance. The debate regarding the best screening policy, however, is far from being concluded. This prompted us to conduct a systematic review of the existing screening pathways for LS.
METHODS: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, and SCOPUS online databases for the existing screening pathways for LS. The eligibility criteria for inclusion in this review required that the studies evaluated a structured and permanent screening pathway for the identification of LS carriers. The effectiveness of the pathways was analyzed in terms of LS detection rate.
RESULTS: We identified five eligible studies. All the LS screening pathways started from CRC cases, of which three followed a universal screening approach. Concerning the laboratory procedures, the pathways used immunohistochemistry and/or microsatellite instability testing. If the responses of the tests indicated a risk for LS, the genetic counseling, performed by a geneticist or a genetic counselor, was mandatory to undergo DNA genetic testing. The overall LS detection rate ranged from 0 to 5.2%.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review reported different existing pathways for the identification of LS patients. Although current clinical guidelines suggest to test all the CRC cases to identify LS cases, the actual implementation of pathways for LS identification has not been realized. Large-scale screening programs for LS have the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality for CRC, but coordinated efforts in educating all key stakeholders and addressing public needs are still required.