| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Editorial Office |  
top_img
Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society > Volume 68(3); 2025 > Article
Kang, Suh, and Kim: Constitutional Mismatch Repair Deficiency, the Most Aggressive Cancer Predisposition Syndrome : Clinical Presentation, Surveillance, and Management

Abstract

Constitutional mismatch repair deficiency (CMMRD) is a rare and highly aggressive cancer predisposition syndrome caused by biallelic germline mutations in mismatch repair genes. This condition is characterized by early-onset malignancies across multiple organ systems, including central nervous system tumors, hematological cancers, and gastrointestinal malignancies. CMMRD-associated tumors exhibit hypermutation and microsatellite instability, resulting in a high tumor mutation burden and rendering these malignancies responsive to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). ICIs targeting programmed cell death protein-1 and programmed cell death ligand 1 have demonstrated remarkable efficacy, particularly in hypermutated tumors, providing durable responses and improving survival outcomes. Advances in genetic and molecular diagnostics have enhanced the ability to identify CMMRD early, allowing for the implementation of comprehensive surveillance programs and improved management strategies. A multidisciplinary and individualized approach is essential for managing CMMRD patients. This review underscores the importance of early diagnosis, surveillance, and emerging therapeutic approaches to improve outcomes and quality of life for individuals and families affected by this devastating syndrome.

OVERVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL MISMATCH REPAIR DEFICIENCY (CMMRD) SYNDROME

DNA polymerase enzymes facilitate DNA replication during the S-phase of the cell cycle, a process that, despite its remarkable efficiency, is inherently prone to errors [35]. During replication, two primary types of errors can occur : single-nucleotide variations, resulting from incorrect base incorporation, and insertions or deletions (indels), often caused by polymerase slippage. This slippage is particularly frequent in repetitive genomic segments known as microsatellites [8,31]. Replication fidelity, which is essential for maintaining genomic stability and preventing mutations that contribute to cancer and other genetic disorders, is governed by several mechanisms (Fig. 1). These include DNA polymerase selectivity, the exonuclease proofreading activity of polymerases encoded by the POLD1 and POLE genes, and the mismatch repair (MMR) system [27].
CMMRD syndrome is a rare, autosomal recessive, highly penetrant cancer predisposition syndrome caused by biallelic germline mutations in one of the four MMR genes; MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2 [36,51]. The MMR system plays a critical role in maintaining genomic stability, particularly by correcting base-base mismatches and insertion-deletion loops during DNA replication, particularly in repetitive sequences known as microsatellites [29]. Loss of MMR function results in uncontrolled mutagenesis and genomic instability, characterized by a high tumor mutation burden (TMB) as well as microsatellite instability (MSI), the hallmark of MMR-deficient tumors. CMMRD cancers are classified as hypermutated (TMB ≥10 mutations per megabase), and in some cases, an additional polymerase proofreading defect leads to ultramutated tumors (TMB ≥100 mutations/MB) that evade conventional MSI tests but can be detected by more sensitive methods [1,23,42]. Hypermutated MMR-deficient tumors produce immunogenic neoantigens, rendering them responsive to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which have shown clinical benefit in CMMRD patients with gastrointestinal (GI) and brain tumors [39]. However, MMR deficiency can also confer resistance to certain chemotherapies, notably temozolomide, which is commonly used to treat brain tumors [18].
The incidence of CMMRD is estimated at 1 in a million births in non-consanguineous populations, though the prevalence can be higher in populations with high rates of consanguinity and/or founder mutations [30,33]. Approximately 60% of CMMRD patients have a biallelic PMS2 pathogenic variant, followed by over 20% with a biallelic MSH6 pathogenic variant, and less than 20% with a biallelic pathogenic variant in either MLH1 or MSH2 [16,53]. Owing to lower penetrance of monoallelic PMS2 and MSH6 variants, CMMRD patients often lack a strong family history of Lynch syndrome-associated cancers. Lynch syndrome, an autosomal dominant cancer predisposition syndrome caused by heterozygous mutations in the MMR genes, typically manifests as MSI-high colorectal, endometrial, gastric, and ovarian cancers in mid to late adulthood. In contrast, patients with CMMRD have a very high risk for a broad spectrum of malignancies, including central nervous system (CNS), hematological, GI, and other cancer types, often leading to death within the first two or three decades of life [16,45]. CMMRD is also associated with non-malignant phenotypes, including café-au-lait spots resembling those seen in neurofibromatosis, and other developmental abnormalities [54].
Early identification of CMMRD is crucial for implementing effective surveillance strategies, determining appropriate treatment options, and providing genetic counseling for affected families [2,9]. Recent advances in molecular diagnostics have significantly improved the diagnosis of CMMRD. However, the rarity of the condition, coupled with its variable clinical presentation and often delayed diagnosis, underscores the need for increased awareness. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of CMMRD syndrome, encompassing its clinical manifestations, diagnostic approaches, surveillance guidelines, and management strategies. By this review, we hope to facilitate a deeper understanding of this condition and highlight emerging insights that may improve outcomes for affected individuals.

CLINICAL PRESENTATION OF CMMRD

A distinctive feature of CMMRD is the early onset of malignancies, often affecting multiple organ systems (Table 1). Cancers associated with CMMRD typically arise at a median age of less than 10 years, with a cumulative cancer incidence exceeding 90% by the age of 18 years and approaching 100% by the age of 40 years [2,11,16]. With a significantly higher incidence of primary and subsequent cancers at young ages compared to other predisposition syndromes, and patients developing new tumors approximately every 2 years, CMMRD represents one of the most aggressive and highly penetrant human cancer predisposition syndromes [16,24]. The hallmark tumors in CMMRD include glioma or CNS embryonal tumors diagnosed before the age of 25 years, hematological cancer (excluding Hodgkin’s lymphoma) diagnosed before the age of 18 years, and GI adenocarcinoma diagnosed before the age of 25 years [2]. The presence of over 10 adenomatous GI polyps before 18 years, after ruling out other polyposis conditions, is also a suggestive feature. In addition, Patients with CMMRD have been reported to develop cancers typically seen in adults, such as breast, prostate, pancreatic, and genitourinary cancers, which present at significantly earlier ages than in the general population.
CNS tumors are the most frequent malignancies, accounting for up to 51% of cases in the CMMRD cohort [5,15,16,30,52]. High-grade gliomas, including glioblastomas, are particularly common and often represent the initial manifestation of the disease. Other CNS tumors, such as medulloblastomas and ependymomas, are also observed, though less frequently. The median age at diagnosis for CNS tumors is 9.7 years (interquartile range [IQR], 6.9-12.9), with a cumulative incidence of 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76-88%) by age 20. The 10-year overall survival rate following a cancer diagnosis is significantly worse for CNS tumors at 39% (95% CI, 30-52%), making them a leading cause of mortality in CMMRD patients.
Hematologic malignancies, including T-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma, B-cell lymphoma, and leukemia (both lymphoid and myeloid), account for approximately 18% of reported cancers in CMMRD [5,15,16,30,52]. These malignancies typically occur during childhood or adolescence, with a median age at diagnosis of 9.7 years (IQR, 5.3-13.4) and a cumulative incidence of 33% (95% CI, 24-41%) by age 20. They are often aggressive in nature, with a 10-year overall survival rate following a cancer diagnosis of 67% (95% CI, 55-82%).
GI cancers, particularly colorectal adenocarcinomas, are another common feature of CMMRD [5,15,16,30,52]. Small intestinal adenocarcinomas and other GI tract tumors are also observed. The risk of GI cancers begins in early adolescence and continues to increase throughout life, with a median age at diagnosis of 20.1 years (IQR, 13.9-24.9) and a cumulative incidence of 42% (95% CI, 30-54%) by age 20. Multiple adenomatous polyps may be detectable as early as 6 years of age.
CMMRD syndrome is often associated with café-au-lait macules (CALM), neurofibromas, and axillary freckling, though only a minority of patients meet the National Institutes of Health diagnostic criteria for neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) [16,49,54]. CMMRD should also be considered in children suspected of sporadic NF1 but lacking NF1 or SPRED1 mutations, particularly if they exhibit features like Lynch syndrome-related cancers in the family, childhood cancers in siblings, or atypical skin lesions. CALMs in CMMRD typically present with irregular, jagged borders and variable pigmentation, distinguishing them from those in NF1, and hypochromic spots, which are absent in NF1, are observed in 16-29% of patients with CMMRD [16,30]. Other features include venous anomalies, pilomatrixomas, grey matter heterotopia, and systemic conditions such as lupus erythematosus and renal angiomyolipomas [3,7,40,41,47]. These manifestations, although not routinely evaluated at the time of diagnosis, can provide essential clues when a diagnosis is uncertain.

DIAGNOSIS OF CMMRD

CMMRD testing is indicated for all patients with clinical and genetic features suggestive of the syndrome [9,45,53]. Table 2 presents the revised Care for CMMRD consortium (C4CMMRD) indication criteria outlined in the European Reference Network on Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS) guidelines. Testing should be considered in cancer patients scoring at least 3 points on the C4CMMRD scoring system, which incorporates malignancies, non-malignant manifestations, and family history. Testing is also recommended for all cancer patients under 18 years of age with a tumor exhibiting pediatric-high TMB, regardless of the presence of somatic POLE or POLD1 pathogenic variants, and for those with tumors demonstrating loss of expression of one or more MMR proteins in neoplastic and nonneoplastic cells as identified by immunohistochemical (IHC) staining [21]. Furthermore, CMMRD testing should be performed in cancer patients under 18 years with a heterozygous (likely) pathogenic variant in one of the MMR genes detected by germline sequencing [28]. A family history assessment and physical examination are essential for patients meeting these indication criteria for CMMRD testing. Additionally, it may be considered for children suspected of having sporadic NF1 or Legius syndrome without cancer and no germline NF1 or SPRED1 pathogenic variant, particularly in patients with additional features outlined by the C4CMMRD guidelines [44].
Any testing strategy for CMMRD should aim to provide a definitive diagnosis by confirming or ruling out the syndrome while simultaneously identifying the causative variants in the relevant MMR gene. In patients with (pre-)malignancies, testing should include IHC staining of all four MMR proteins in tumor tissue to evaluate protein expression in both neoplastic and non-neoplastic cells, including tumor-infiltrating leukocytes and endothelial cells. Laboratories performing genetic testing for CMMRD should be equipped to offer transcript analysis of all four MMR genes (PMS2, MSH6, MSH2, and MLH1) and utilize assays that address diagnostic challenges posed by the high homology between PMS2 and its pseudogene PMS2CL. Furthermore, for index patients with or without (pre-)malignancies, laboratories should have validated ancillary assays available to confirm or rule out CMMRD in cases where genetic testing yields inconclusive results, as described by the currently available ancillary assays for CMMRD listed in Table 3 [6,17,20,22,25,43].
Germline testing of MMR genes (PMS2, MSH6, MSH2, and MLH1) is crucial for diagnosing CMMRD. The American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) categorizes variants into five classifications : pathogenic (P), likely pathogenic (LP), variants of unknown significance (VUS), likely benign (LB), and benign (B) [37]. Only P/LP variants are considered actionable for clinical decision-making, while VUS are not actionable due to insufficient evidence, and LB/B variants are assumed not to contribute to the phenotype. However, challenges arise in cases of nondefinitive results, such as biallelic VUS or monoallelic VUS combined with a P/LP variant, as these may still impact protein function and lead to CMMRD [30,32,34]. For example, a study described a patient with homozygous MSH6 VUS who exhibited clinical and ancillary findings consistent with CMMRD, highlighting the importance of functional assays in such cases [46]. In a study of 12 CMMRD families, 67% had biallelic P/LP variants, 17% had biallelic VUS, 8% had monoallelic pathogenic variants, and 8% had no variants detected, while similar findings were observed in the C4CMMRD consortium study of brain tumor patients [4,22]. These results underscore the need for ancillary testing, such as immunohistochemistry or MSI analysis, to confirm the diagnosis when germline results are inconclusive. Germline testing, complemented by ancillary methods, is essential for accurate diagnosis and the careful interpretation of variant pathogenicity in suspected CMMRD cases. The diagnostic criteria for CMMRD are based on a combination of germline testing, ancillary testing, and clinical manifestations (Table 4) [2]. Seven criteria have been established by experts, with four providing strong evidence for a definitive diagnosis and three offering moderate evidence for a likely diagnosis, all of which warrant CMMRD surveillance.

GENETIC COUNSELING OF CMMRD

Genetic counseling for CMMRD should be provided by a multidisciplinary team including a medical geneticist, pediatric oncologist, and psychologist, ensuring that both medical and psychosocial aspects of the condition are addressed [9]. Parents of a child diagnosed with CMMRD should undergo genetic testing to confirm their carrier status and identify the specific pathogenic variants involved, thus enabling accurate risk assessment and informed family planning. Cascade genetic testing should be extended to all relatives in both parental branches to identify individuals at risk and facilitate early surveillance and prevention strategies. All siblings of a CMMRD patient, irrespective of age or clinical features, should be tested because of the early-onset nature of cancers associated with CMMRD. If CMMRD is not confirmed by identifying two pathogenic MMR variants but rather through ancillary tests, siblings should likewise receive these ancillary tests to exclude CMMRD. Reproductive counseling, including discussion of prenatal and preimplantation genetic testing, is essential for parents of reproductive age and couples in which both partners carry a pathogenic variant in the same MMR gene, or where consanguinity, founder mutations, or a significant family history exist. Children of Lynch syndrome carriers who exhibit clinical features suggestive of CMMRD should undergo testing to assess their risk.
Recent large-scale analyses of patients with CMMRD have revealed genotype-phenotype associations [16]. MLH1 and MSH2 mutations, most of which are homozygous missense mutations, are associated with more aggressive phenotypes, including early onset, higher penetrance, and poorer overall outcomes. Conversely, PMS2 variants, generally associated with a milder phenotype, exhibited heterogeneity; frameshift or truncating variants are associated with earlier cancer onset, and worse survival than missense variants. Notably, even within the same gene mutation, variant type (truncating vs. missense) significantly impacts cancer onset and prognosis. Current guidelines do not offer tailored recommendations due to limited evidence on genotype-specific differences in screening and treatment. However, while surveillance and immunotherapy improve survival across all genotypes, their efficacy varies by affected genes and variants, emphasizing the need for personalized surveillance strategies based on both the specific MMR gene and variant type.

SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM OF CMMRD

CMMRD is associated with a significantly increased risk of developing multiple malignancies from a young age, emphasizing the importance of comprehensive surveillance. Table 5 summarizes the surveillance recommendations [9,13,14,19,45,50]. A key aspect of surveillance involves educating patients and their parents about the broad spectrum of CMMRD-associated tumors, which is critical for shared decision-making about participating in a surveillance program. They should be also informed the specific symptoms associated with main tumors, including dyspnea or superior vena cava syndrome for mediastinal lymphomas, signs of pancytopenia for leukemia, neurological deficits for brain tumors, and rectal bleeding for colorectal lesions.
Regular clinical examinations are recommended every 6 months for both children and adults. The cornerstone of the surveillance program is bran magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which should begin at diagnosis or by age 2, continue every 6 months until age 20, and then at least annually thereafter. Colonoscopy is another essential component of surveillance, starting at age 6 and performed at least annually. Upper GI endoscopy, ensuring visualization of the entire duodenum and ampullary region, should be performed at least annually, beginning simultaneously with colonoscopy or at least by age 10. Video capsule endoscopy is recommended annually from the age of 10. Once polys are detected, the frequency of examination can increase to every 6 months. Ideally, these GI examinations should be conducted at centers with gastroenterologists who have experience in Lynch syndrome surveillance. Gynecological surveillance, including clinical examination and transvaginal ultrasonography, as well as abdominopelvic ultrasonography for gynecological and urinary tract tumor screening is recommended annually from age 20. Prophylactic hysterectomy can be discussed once family planning is complete.
Whole-body MRI is recommended at least once at diagnosis or when anesthesia is no longer necessary, to detect asymptomatic low-grade tumors or malformations. Annual whole-body MRI may also be considered as a surveillance option, although current evidence for its efficacy in CMMRD screening remains limited [14]. The roles of blood counts and abdominal ultrasounds in screening for hematologic malignancies and lymphomas are still under debated. Breast cancer screening for CMMRD patients generally follows the guidelines for the general population.

CLINICAL MANAGEMENT OF CMMRD

A multidisciplinary, individualized approach that accounts for the high risk of multiple malignancies should be emphasized in the management of CMMRD patients to optimize care, and enrollment in clinical trials is encouraged whenever possible [9]. In general, standard protocols for each tumor type are followed. For resectable high-grade gliomas, surgery remains the mainstay of treatment. Also, CMMRD associated low-grade gliomas should be considered to be resected whenever possible without excessive neurologic risks. Radiotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation are not contraindicated if indicated, and chemotherapy for lymphomas and leukemia should not differ from the standard treatment for sporadic cases [38]. Multiple colonic adenomas should be surgically managed in line with general practice for other polyposis syndromes.
Temozolomide is no longer recommended in CMMRD-associated high-grade glioma, given preclinical evidence that MMR defects are a major mechanism of temozolomide resistance and the observed hypermutated phenotype in recurrent glioblastomas after temozolomide treatment [18,48]. Immunotherapy using ICIs has emerged as a particularly promising treatment modality for CMMRD-related tumors. The defective MMR mechanism in these tumors leads to the accumulation of numerous neoantigens, making them highly immunogenic and responsive to ICIs. Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors (atezolizumab, durvalumab), which are widely used in the treatment of CMMRD-related tumors, enhance the immune response against tumors by blocking the inhibitory signaling pathways that prevent T-cells from attacking tumor cells [11]. Several studies have reported high response rates with these agents in CMMRD-related malignancies, including high-grade gliomas and advanced colorectal cancer [10,12,24]. These immune activation caused by ICI, at the same time, can incur immune-related adverse events (irAEs). A study of 75 pediatric patients with chemo-radiation refractory CMMRD high-grade glioma who were treated with combined ICI reported that 50% of patients underwent irAEs to interrupt ICI. Hepatitis (60%) and colitis (33%) were most common. Higher incidences of irAEs were evaluated in patients in CMMRD than Lynch syndrome [10]. Further studies are required due to the limited data on the long-term side effects of ICIs in pediatrics, including growth impairments and other endocrine abnormalities.
Unlike other DNA damage repair syndromes, CMMRD primarily affects DNA replication rather than the repair of damage induced by external genotoxic agents. Consequently, in cases of CMMRD, the response of normal tissues to chemotherapy and radiotherapy remains largely intact. As such, there is no evidence to support dose reduction of standard chemotherapy or radiotherapy regimens in these patients, as they do not exhibit the excessive treatment-related toxicity seen in other DNA repair disorders [11]. Interestingly, a study of chemo-radiation refractory CMMRD high-grade gliomas, which was previously referred to, reported patients who received ICI with radiotherapy had better survival outcomes, even after prior radiation exposure [10]. However, a larger clinical study should be performed to confirm these findings about radiation effects on patients with CMMRD patients.
For malignancies in the Lynch syndrome spectrum (e.g., colorectal cancers), ICIs are now the standard of care for metastatic or advanced disease, yielding significant clinical benefits [26]. Given the multiple and aggressive nature of CMMRD-associated tumors, immunotherapy is recommended as first-line therapy for large, unresectable, or metastatic lesions. Beyond these high-incidence tumor types, ICIs may also be considered for non-Lynch-related malignancies in CMMRD patients [9]. For tumors that have only a limited chance of cure or are poorly responsive to standard therapies, ICIs may be used after interdisciplinary discussions, although evidence regarding specific indications and optimal treatment timing remains limited.

CONCLUSION

CMMRD is a rare, but highly aggressive cancer predisposition syndrome characterized by early-onset malignancies in multiple organ systems. Advances in genetic and molecular diagnostics have significantly improved the identification and management of this condition. Comprehensive surveillance programs, including brain MRI and GI endoscopy, are crucial for early detection and management of tumors, while genetic counseling plays a pivotal role in supporting affected families and guiding their decisions.
Recent studies on ICIs have revolutionized the therapeutic landscape for CMMRD-associated malignancies. ICIs have demonstrated remarkable efficacy, particularly in hypermutated and immunogenic tumors, providing durable responses and significantly improving outcomes for many patients. However, several challenges remain, including treatment resistance, the complexity of managing synchronous and metachronous tumors, and optimizing care across a broad spectrum of cancers. Multidisciplinary, individualized approaches to care, combined with ongoing research and clinical trials, are essential to advancing the management of this devastating syndrome and alleviating the burden of CMMRD on patients and their families.

Notes

Conflicts of interest

Sang-Dae Kim has been editorial board of JKNS since May 2017. He was not involved in the review process of this original article. No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Informed consent

This type of study does not require informed consent.

Author contributions

Conceptualization : EK, JKS, SDK; Data curation : EK; Formal analysis : EK, JKS, SDK; Methodology : EK, JKS; Project administration : EK; Visualization : EK; Writing - original draft : EK, JKS; Writing - review & editing : EK, JKS, SDK

Data sharing

None

Preprint

None

Fig. 1.
Polymerase-proofreading and mismatch repair system. Replication fidelity is maintained through multiple mechanisms, including DNA polymerase selectivity, exonuclease proofreading activity encoded by the POLD1 and POLE genes, and the mismatch repair (MMR) system. The MMR system plays a critical role in correcting mismatches and small insertion-deletion loops that evade polymerase proofreading, thereby maintaining genomic stability and preventing mutagenesis. POLE : DNA polymerase epsilon, catalytic subunit, PMS2 : postmeiotic segregation increased 2, MSH : mutS homolog, MLH1 : mutL homolog 1, POLD1 : DNA polymerase delta 1, catalytic subunit.
jkns-2025-0024f1.jpg
Table 1.
Tumor spectrum and incidence in CMMRD (n=339 tumors in 201 patients with CMMRD) [16]
Value Age at diagnosis (years)
Central nervous system 173 (51.0) 9.7 (6.9-12.9)
 Glioblastoma 115 (66.0)
 Anaplastic astocytoma 25 (14.0)
 Medulloblastoma 18 (10.0)
 Low-grade glioma 5 (3.0)
 Embryonal tumor 7 (4.0)
 Ependymoma 1 (1.0)
 Diffuse midline glioma 1 (1.0)
 Anaplastic pleomrophic xanthoastrocytoma 1 (1.0)
Gastrointestinal 75 (22.0) 20.1 (13.9-24.9)
 Colorectal carcinoma 59 (79.0)
 Small bowel adenocarcinoma 12 (16.0)
 Gastric adenocarcinoma 3 (4.0)
 Pancreatic cancer 1 (1.0)
Hematological 61 (18.0) 9.7 (5.3-13.4)
 T-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma 26 (43.0)
 B-cell lymphoma 14 (23.0)
 Precursor B-ALL 9 (15.0)
 T-ALL 3 (5.0)
 Acute myeloid leukemia 4 (7.0)
 Mixed-phenotype acute leukemia 1 (2.0)
 Histiocytic sarcoma 1 (2.0)
 Non-Hodgkin lymphoma 1 (2.0)
 Hodgkin lymphoma 1 (2.0)
Other cancers 30 (9.0) 14.9 (7.7-23.9)
 Genitourinary 10 (33.0)
 Pilomatrical neoplasms 10 (33.0)
 Melanoma 3 (10.0)
 Breast cancer 2 (7.0)
 Retinoblastoma 1 (3.0)
 Neuroblastoma 1 (3.0)
 Osteochondroma 1 (3.0)
 Sebaceous carcinoma of the eyelid 1 (3.0)
 Sarcoma 1 (3.0)

Values are presented as median (interquartile range) or number (%).

CMMRD : constitutional mismatch repair deficiency, ALL : acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Table 2.
Revised Care for CMMRD consortium indication criteria for CMMRD testing in cancer patients
Category Criteria Point
C4CMMRD scoring points assigned to (pre-) malignancies in the patient (at least 1 point is mandatory) Carcinoma of the Lynch syndrome (LS) spectrum* and/or a high-grade dysplastic adenoma of the digestive tract at age <25 years 3
Multiple colorectal adenomas at age <25 years and no genetic diagnosis/explanation upon testing for polyposis syndromes 3
T-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma at age <18 years 2
WHO grade III or IV glioma at age <25 years 2
Any other malignancy at age <18 years 1
C4CMMRD scoring points assigned to additional features in the patient (optional) Clinical sign of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) and/or ≥4 hyperpigmented and/or hypopigmented skin alterations with Ød >1 cm 2
2 or 3 hyperpigmented and/or hypopigmented skin alterations with Ø >1 cm (do not count if two points are already given for “clinical sign of NF1 and/or ≥4 hyperpigmented and/or hypopigmented skin alterations with diameter >1 cm”) 1
Multiple pilomatrixomas 2
One pilomatrixoma 1
Agenesis of the corpus callosum 1
Non-therapy-induced cavernoma 1
Multiple developmental venous anomalies (DVAs, also known as cerebral venous angiomas) in separate regions of the brain 2
Pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus 1
Deficiency/reduced levels of IgG2/4 and/or IgA 1
C4CMMRD scoring points assigned to additional features in the family (optional) Consanguineous parents 1
Diagnosis of LS in a first-degree or second-degree relative 2
Carcinoma from LS spectrum* before the age of 60 years in a first-degree, second-degree, and/or third-degree relative 1
A sibling with a (pre-)malignancy assigned two or three C4CMMRD scoring points 2
A sibling with any type of childhood malignancy 1

CMMRD testing is indicated in a patient with cancer ≥ 3 points [9].

* Colorectal, endometrial, small bowel, urothelial, gastric, ovarian, and biliary tract cancer.

Included as a new feature in the revised C4CMMRD indication criteria within the European Reference Network on Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS) guidelines.

CMMRD : constitutional mismatch repair deficiency, WHO : World Health Organization, C4CMMRD : European Consortium Care for CMMRD, IgG : immunoglobulin G, IgA : immunoglobulin A

Table 3.
Comprehensive overview of Ancillary tests available for CMMRD diagnosis
Test Description Advantages Limitations
Immunohistochemistry of non-neoplastic tissue Immunohistochemical staining of MMR proteins in non-cancerous tissue (e.g., skin or normal colon biopsy) Widely available, low cost, high specificity (~100%) and sensitivity (>90%) in experienced labs Interpretation can be subjective; obtaining normal tissue may be invasive; pathogenic missense variants may lead to false-positive and negative results
Germline microsatellite instability (MSI) Analysis of "stutter" peaks in non-neoplastic tissue PCR products Rapid results, routinely used in some European countries Insensitive to MSH6 deficiency; not widely available outside Europe; ~16% uninterpretable results
Ex vivo MSI (evMSI) Combines tolerance to methylating agents and MSI analysis in lymphoblastoid cell lines High sensitivity and specificity; concordant results strengthen interpretation Requires ~120 days for cell immortalization and culture; limited clinical accessibility, especially in North America
In vitro repair assay Quantifies MMR activity from patient-derived lymphoblastoid cell lines and identifies defective protein complexes High specificity and sensitivity; identifies specific defective MMR complexes Requires live cell cultures; limited scalability; not yet clinically approved
NGS-based MSI testing Detects low MSI levels using next-generation sequencing from constitutional tissue Highly sensitive and specific; cost-effective; scalable without requiring live cell cultures Not yet widely commercially available; requires expertise in NGS analysis

CMMRD : constitutional mismatch repair deficiency, MMR : mismatch repair, PCR : polymerase chain reaction, MSH6 : mutS homolog 6, NGS : next generation sequencing

Table 4.
the recommended CMMRD diagnostic criteria from the international consensus working group [2]
Criterion Germline result Positive Ancillary testing Clinical phenotype
Definitive diagnosis (strong evidence of CMMRD) 1 Biallelic pathogenic variants (P/P)*, confirmed in trans Not required unless unaffected >25 years, then one required Not required if under age 25 (if no malignancy over age 25, ancillary testing required)
2 Biallelic P/LP or LP/LP* variants, confirmed in trans One required for hallmark CMMRD. Two required for C4CMMRD criteria**. Hallmark CMMRD cancer diagnosis or C4CMMRD criteria of 3 points** (then two ancillary tests required)
3 Heterozygous P or LP variant (±VUS* or likely benign variants) One required Hallmark CMMRD cancer diagnosis
4 No P or LP MMR variants (including VUS/ VUS)††. Or no testing available (i.e., deceased Two required Hallmark CMMRD cancer diagnosis
Likely diagnosis (moderate evidence of CMMRD) 5 Biallelic P/LP* or LP/LP variants, confirmed in trans§ Not required C4CMMRD criteria of 3 points**
6 No P or LP MMR variants (including VUS/ VUS)††. Or no testing available (i.e., deceased One required Hallmark CMMRD cancer diagnosis
7‡‡ Heterozygous P or LP variant or no testing available (i.e., deceased proband) Two required C4CMMRD criteria of 3 points**. Individuals aged <18 with NF1 features (i.e., no malignancy or polyposis history). Malignancy under 30.

* Biallelic-impacts same gene on both parental alleles (i.e., PMS2/PMS2); P, pathogenic (ACMG C5); LP, likely pathogenic (ACMG C4); VUS (ACMG C3). Multigene panel testing is recommended to investigate overlapping conditions. Consider phenotype of individual to rule out overlapping syndromes. All families should be assessed in a specialized center for diagnosis.

Ancillary testing is described in further detail in main text of rationale for criteria. Does not include tumor mutation burden and signature at this time. Functional testing should be published with proven high sensitivity and specificity performed in an accredited (e.g., CAP-inspected) laboratory authorized to give a clinically usable report. If discrepancy occurs among tests, multiple ancillary tests should be used to reach more conclusive decision.

In trans variants can be proven by testing parents, offspring or other relatives. If unavailable to confirm variants in trans, individual should fulfil criterion 3.

§ If unavailable to confirm variants in trans, individual should fulfil criterion 6.

Hallmark CMMRD cancer : glioma or CNS embryonal tumours <25 years, haematological cancer (excluding Hodgkin’s lymphoma) <18 years, GI adenocarcinoma <25 years, or >10 adenomatous GI polyps <18 years (after ruling out polyposis conditions).

** C4CMMRD criteria outlined in Table 2.

†† Consanguinity further supports a diagnosis of CMMRD due to a homozygous MMR gene mutation that is unidentifiable.

‡‡ Individuals with two positive ancillary tests for CMMRD in the absence of the described phenotype can be assessed on a case-by-case basis, but these are atypical CMMRD cases and additional assessment is required to determine surveillance.

CMMRD : constitutional mismatch repair deficiency, C4CMMRD : European Consortium Care for CMMRD, MMR : mismatch repair, NF1 : neurofibromatosis type 1, ACMG : American College of Medical Genetics, CAP : College of American Pathologist, CNS : central nervous system, GI : gastrointestinal

Table 5.
Surveillance recommendations for patients with CMMRD
Tumor type Screening tool Frequency
All tumors - Clinical examination - Clinical exam : every 6 months from diagnosis
- Education on signs/symptoms - WBMRI : at diagnosis or when anesthesia no longer required; optional annual imaging thereafter
- Whole-body MRI (WBMRI)
Brain tumors - Brain MRI Every 6 months from age 2-20, annually after age 20
Digestive tumors - Colonoscopy (ileocolonoscopy) Annually : from age of 6 for colonoscopy and from age 10 for upper GI and video capsule endoscopy
- Upper GI endoscopy
- Video capsule endoscopy
Leukemias - Blood count Every 6 months after age 1
Lymphomas - Abdominal ultrasonography Every 6 months (optional) after age 1
Gynecological - Clinical exam & transvaginal ultrasound Annually from age 20, prophylactic surgery once family planning is completed
- Prophylactic hysterectomy
Urological - Urine cytology & dipstick Annually: from age 10 for cytology/dipstick
- Abdominopelvic ultrasound From age 20 for abdominopelvic ultrasound

CMMRD : constitutional mismatch repair deficiency, MRI : magnetic resonance imaging, GI : gastrointestinal

References

1. Andrianova MA, Chetan GK, Sibin MK, McKee T, Merkler D, Narasinga RK, et al : Germline PMS2 and somatic POLE exonuclease mutations cause hypermutability of the leading DNA strand in biallelic mismatch repair deficiency syndrome brain tumours. J Pathol 243 : 331-341, 2017
crossref pmid pdf
2. Aronson M, Colas C, Shuen A, Hampel H, Foulkes WD, Baris Feldman H, et al : Diagnostic criteria for constitutional mismatch repair deficiency (CMMRD): recommendations from the international consensus working group. J Med Genet 59 : 318-327, 2022
crossref pmid
3. Baas AF, Gabbett M, Rimac M, Kansikas M, Raphael M, Nievelstein RA, et al : Agenesis of the corpus callosum and gray matter heterotopia in three patients with constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome. Eur J Hum Genet 21 : 55-61, 2013
crossref pmid pdf
4. Bakry D, Aronson M, Durno C, Rimawi H, Farah R, Alharbi QK, et al : Genetic and clinical determinants of constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome: report from the constitutional mismatch repair deficiency consortium. Eur J Cancer 50 : 987-996, 2014
crossref pmid
5. Baris HN, Barnes-Kedar I, Toledano H, Halpern M, Hershkovitz D, Lossos A, et al : Constitutional mismatch repair deficiency in israel: high proportion of founder mutations in MMR genes and consanguinity. Pediatr Blood Cancer 63 : 418-427, 2016
crossref pmid pdf
6. Bodo S, Colas C, Buhard O, Collura A, Tinat J, Lavoine N, et al : Diagnosis of constitutional mismatch repair-deficiency syndrome based on microsatellite instability and lymphocyte tolerance to methylating agents. Gastroenterology 149 : 1017-1029.e3, 2015
crossref pmid
7. Chmara M, Wernstedt A, Wasag B, Peeters H, Renard M, Beert E, et al : Multiple pilomatricomas with somatic CTNNB1 mutations in children with constitutive mismatch repair deficiency. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 52 : 656-664, 2013
crossref pmid
8. Chung J, Maruvka YE, Sudhaman S, Kelly J, Haradhvala NJ, Bianchi V, et al : DNA polymerase and mismatch repair exert distinct microsatellite instability signatures in normal and malignant human cells. Cancer Discov 11 : 1176-1191, 2021
crossref pmid pdf
9. Colas C, Guerrini-Rousseau L, Suerink M, Gallon R, Kratz CP, Ayuso É, et al : ERN GENTURIS guidelines on constitutional mismatch repair deficiency diagnosis, genetic counselling, surveillance, quality of life, and clinical management. Eur J Hum Genet 32 : 1526-1541, 2024
crossref pmid pmc pdf
10. Das A, Fernandez NR, Levine A, Bianchi V, Stengs LK, Chung J, et al : Combined immunotherapy improves outcome for replication-repair-deficient (RRD) high-grade glioma failing anti-PD-1 monotherapy: a report from the International RRD Consortium. Cancer Discov 14 : 258-273, 2024
pmid
11. Das A, MacFarland SP, Meade J, Hansford JR, Schneider KW, Kuiper RP, et al : Clinical updates and surveillance recommendations for DNA replication repair deficiency syndromes in children and young adults. Clin Cancer Res 30 : 3378-3387, 2024
crossref pmid pdf
12. Das A, Sudhaman S, Morgenstern D, Coblentz A, Chung J, Stone SC, et al : Genomic predictors of response to PD-1 inhibition in children with germline DNA replication repair deficiency. Nat Med 28 : 125-135, 2022
pmid pmc
13. Durno C, Boland CR, Cohen S, Dominitz JA, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, et al : Recommendations on surveillance and management of biallelic mismatch repair deficiency (BMMRD) syndrome: a consensus statement by the US multisociety task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 152 : 1605-1614, 2017
crossref pmid
14. Durno C, Ercan AB, Bianchi V, Edwards M, Aronson M, Galati M, et al : Survival benefit for individuals with constitutional mismatch repair deficiency undergoing surveillance. J Clin Oncol 39 : 2779-2790, 2021
pmid pmc
15. Durno CA, Holter S, Sherman PM, Gallinger S : The gastrointestinal phenotype of germline biallelic mismatch repair gene mutations. Am J Gastroenterol 105 : 2449-2456, 2010
crossref pmid pdf
16. Ercan AB, Aronson M, Fernandez NR, Chang Y, Levine A, Liu ZA, et al : Clinical and biological landscape of constitutional mismatch-repair deficiency syndrome: an International Replication Repair Deficiency Consortium cohort study. Lancet Oncol 25 : 668-682, 2024
pmid
17. Gallon R, Mühlegger B, Wenzel SS, Sheth H, Hayes C, Aretz S, et al : A sensitive and scalable microsatellite instability assay to diagnose constitutional mismatch repair deficiency by sequencing of peripheral blood leukocytes. Hum Mutat 40 : 649-655, 2019
crossref pmid pdf
18. Gan T, Wang Y, Xie M, Wang Q, Zhao S, Wang P, et al : MEX3A impairs DNA mismatch repair signaling and mediates acquired temozolomide resistance in glioblastoma. Cancer Res 82 : 4234-4246, 2022
crossref pmid pdf
19. Ghorbanoghli Z, van Kouwen M, Versluys B, Bonnet D, Devalck C, Tinat J, et al : High yield of surveillance in patients diagnosed with constitutional mismatch repair deficiency. J Med Genet 60 : 679-684, 2023
crossref pmid
20. González-Acosta M, Marín F, Puliafito B, Bonifaci N, Fernández A, Navarro M, et al : High-sensitivity microsatellite instability assessment for the detection of mismatch repair defects in normal tissue of biallelic germline mismatch repair mutation carriers. J Med Genet 57 : 269-273, 2020
crossref pmid
21. Gröbner SN, Worst BC, Weischenfeldt J, Buchhalter I, Kleinheinz K, Rudneva VA, et al : The landscape of genomic alterations across childhood cancers. Nature 555 : 321-327, 2018
pmid
22. Guerrini-Rousseau L, Varlet P, Colas C, Andreiuolo F, Bourdeaut F, Dahan K, et al : Constitutional mismatch repair deficiency-associated brain tumors: report from the European C4CMMRD consortium. Neurooncol Adv 1 : vdz033, 2019
crossref pmid pmc pdf
23. Haradhvala NJ, Kim J, Maruvka YE, Polak P, Rosebrock D, Livitz D, et al : Distinct mutational signatures characterize concurrent loss of polymerase proofreading and mismatch repair. Nat Commun 9 : 1746, 2018
crossref pmid pmc pdf
24. Henderson JJ, Das A, Morgenstern DA, Sudhaman S, Bianchi V, Chung J, et al : Immune checkpoint inhibition as single therapy for synchronous cancers exhibiting hypermutation: an IRRDC study. JCO Precis Oncol 6 : e2100286, 2022
crossref pmid pmc
25. Ingham D, Diggle CP, Berry I, Bristow CA, Hayward BE, Rahman N, et al : Simple detection of germline microsatellite instability for diagnosis of constitutional mismatch repair cancer syndrome. Hum Mutat 34 : 847-852, 2013
crossref pmid
26. Jin Z, Sinicrope FA : Mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer: building on checkpoint blockade. J Clin Oncol 40 : 2735-2750, 2022
crossref pmid pmc
27. Jiricny J : The multifaceted mismatch-repair system. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7 : 335-346, 2006
crossref pmid pdf
28. Kratz CP, Smirnov D, Autry R, Jäger N, Waszak SM, Großhennig A, et al : Heterozygous BRCA1 and BRCA2 and mismatch repair gene pathogenic variants in children and adolescents with cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 114 : 1523-1532, 2022
crossref pmid pdf
29. Kunkel TA : Evolving views of DNA replication (in)fidelity. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 74 : 91-101, 2009
crossref pmid pmc
30. Lavoine N, Colas C, Muleris M, Bodo S, Duval A, Entz-Werle N, et al : Constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome: clinical description in a French cohort. J Med Genet 52 : 770-778, 2015
crossref pmid
31. Liu D, Keijzers G, Rasmussen LJ : DNA mismatch repair and its many roles in eukaryotic cells. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res 773 : 174-187, 2017
crossref pmid
32. Mork ME, Borras E, Taggart MW, Cuddy A, Bannon SA, You YN, et al : Identification of a novel PMS2 alteration c.505C>G (R169G) in trans with a PMS2 pathogenic mutation in a patient with constitutional mismatch repair deficiency. Fam Cancer 15 : 587-591, 2016
crossref pmid pmc pdf
33. Perez-Valencia JA, Gallon R, Chen Y, Koch J, Keller M, Oberhuber K, et al : Constitutional mismatch repair deficiency is the diagnosis in 0.41% of pathogenic NF1/SPRED1 variant negative children suspected of sporadic neurofibromatosis type 1. Genet Med 22 : 2081-2088, 2020
crossref pmid pmc pdf
34. Poley JW, Wagner A, Hoogmans MM, Menko FH, Tops C, Kros JM, et al : Biallelic germline mutations of mismatch-repair genes: a possible cause for multiple pediatric malignancies. Cancer 109 : 2349-2356, 2007
crossref pmid
35. Preston BD, Albertson TM, Herr AJ : DNA replication fidelity and cancer. Semin Cancer Biol 20 : 281-293, 2010
crossref pmid pmc
36. Ricciardone MD, Ozçelik T, Cevher B, Ozdağ H, Tuncer M, Gürgey A, et al : Human MLH1 deficiency predisposes to hematological malignancy and neurofibromatosis type 1. Cancer Res 59 : 290-293, 1999
pmid
37. Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J, et al : Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med 17 : 405-424, 2015
crossref pmid pmc pdf
38. Ripperger T, Schlegelberger B : Acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoma in the context of constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome. Eur J Med Genet 59 : 133-142, 2016
crossref pmid
39. Sha D, Jin Z, Budczies J, Kluck K, Stenzinger A, Sinicrope FA : Tumor mutational burden as a predictive biomarker in solid tumors. Cancer Discov 10 : 1808-1825, 2020
crossref pmid pmc pdf
40. Shapira Rootman M, Goldberg Y, Cohen R, Kropach N, Keidar I, Friedland R, et al : The great mimicker: phenotypic overlap between constitutional mismatch repair deficiency and Tuberous Sclerosis complex. Clin Genet 97 : 296-304, 2020
crossref pmid pdf
41. Shiran SI, Ben-Sira L, Elhasid R, Roth J, Tabori U, Yalon M, et al : Multiple brain developmental venous anomalies as a marker for constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 39 : 1943-1946, 2018
crossref pmid pmc
42. Shlien A, Campbell BB, de Borja R, Alexandrov LB, Merico D, Wedge D, et al : Combined hereditary and somatic mutations of replication error repair genes result in rapid onset of ultra-hypermutated cancers. Nat Genet 47 : 257-262, 2015
crossref pmid pdf
43. Shuen AY, Lanni S, Panigrahi GB, Edwards M, Yu L, Campbell BB, et al : Functional repair assay for the diagnosis of constitutional mismatch repair deficiency from non-neoplastic tissue. J Clin Oncol 37 : 461-470, 2019
crossref pmid
44. Suerink M, Ripperger T, Messiaen L, Menko FH, Bourdeaut F, Colas C, et al : Constitutional mismatch repair deficiency as a differential diagnosis of neurofibromatosis type 1: consensus guidelines for testing a child without malignancy. J Med Genet 56 : 53-62, 2019
crossref pmid
45. Tabori U, Hansford JR, Achatz MI, Kratz CP, Plon SE, Frebourg T, et al : Clinical management and tumor surveillance recommendations of inherited mismatch repair deficiency in childhood. Clin Cancer Res 23 : e32-e37, 2017
crossref pmid pdf
46. Taeubner J, Wimmer K, Muleris M, Lascols O, Colas C, Fauth C, et al : Diagnostic challenges in a child with early onset desmoplastic medulloblastoma and homozygous variants in MSH2 and MSH6. Eur J Hum Genet 26 : 440-444, 2018
crossref pmid pmc pdf
47. Toledano H, Orenstein N, Sofrin E, Ruhrman-Shahar N, Amarilyo G, BaselSalmon L, et al : Paediatric systemic lupus erythematosus as a manifestation of constitutional mismatch repair deficiency. J Med Genet 57 : 505-508, 2020
crossref pmid
48. Touat M, Li YY, Boynton AN, Spurr LF, Iorgulescu JB, Bohrson CL, et al : Mechanisms and therapeutic implications of hypermutation in gliomas. Nature 580 : 517-523, 2020
crossref pmid pmc pdf
49. van der Klift HM, Mensenkamp AR, Drost M, Bik EC, Vos YJ, Gille HJ, et al : Comprehensive mutation analysis of PMS2 in a large cohort of probands suspected of lynch syndrome or constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome. Hum Mutat 37 : 1162-1179, 2016
crossref pmid
50. Vasen HF, Ghorbanoghli Z, Bourdeaut F, Cabaret O, Caron O, Duval A, et al : Guidelines for surveillance of individuals with constitutional mismatch repair-deficiency proposed by the European Consortium "Care for CMMR-D" (C4CMMR-D). J Med Genet 51 : 283-293, 2014
crossref pmid
51. Wang Q, Lasset C, Desseigne F, Frappaz D, Bergeron C, Navarro C, et al : Neurofibromatosis and early onset of cancers in hMLH1-deficient children. Cancer Res 59 : 294-297, 1999
pmid
52. Wimmer K, Etzler J : Constitutional mismatch repair-deficiency syndrome: have we so far seen only the tip of an iceberg? Hum Genet 124 : 105-122, 2008
crossref pmid pdf
53. Wimmer K, Kratz CP, Vasen HF, Caron O, Colas C, Entz-Werle N, et al : Diagnostic criteria for constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome: suggestions of the European consortium 'care for CMMRD' (C4CMMRD). J Med Genet 51 : 355-365, 2014
crossref pmid
54. Wimmer K, Rosenbaum T, Messiaen L : Connections between constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome and neurofibromatosis type 1. Clin Genet 91 : 507-519, 2017
crossref pmid pdf
TOOLS
PDF Links  PDF Links
PubReader  PubReader
ePub Link  ePub Link
XML Download  XML Download
Full text via DOI  Full text via DOI
Download Citation  Download Citation
  Print
Share:      
METRICS
0
Crossref
0
Scopus
790
View
34
Download
Related article
Editorial Office
1F, 18, Heolleung-ro 569-gil, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea
TEL: +82-2-525-7552   FAX: +82-2-525-7554   E-mail: office@jkns.or.kr
About |  Browse Articles |  Current Issue |  For Authors and Reviewers
Copyright © Korean Neurosurgical Society.                 Developed in M2PI
Close layer