1
|
Fabi A, Cortesi L, Duranti S, Cordisco EL, Di Leone A, Terribile D, Paris I, de Belvis AG, Orlandi A, Marazzi F, Muratore M, Garganese G, Fuso P, Paoletti F, Dell'Aquila R, Minucci A, Scambia G, Franceschini G, Masetti R, Genuardi M. Multigenic panels in breast cancer: Clinical utility and management of patients with pathogenic variants other than BRCA1/2. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2024; 201:104431. [PMID: 38977141 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2024.104431] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/26/2024] [Revised: 06/14/2024] [Accepted: 06/24/2024] [Indexed: 07/10/2024] Open
Abstract
Multigene panels can analyze high and moderate/intermediate penetrance genes that predispose to breast cancer (BC), providing an opportunity to identify at-risk individuals within affected families. However, considering the complexity of different pathogenic variants and correlated clinical manifestations, a multidisciplinary team is needed to effectively manage BC. A classification of pathogenic variants included in multigene panels was presented in this narrative review to evaluate their clinical utility in BC. Clinical management was discussed for each category and focused on BC, including available evidence regarding the multidisciplinary and integrated management of patients with BC. The integration of both genetic testing and counseling is required for customized decisions in therapeutic strategies and preventative initiatives, as well as for a defined multidisciplinary approach, considering the continuous evolution of guidelines and research in the field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alessandra Fabi
- Precision Medicine Unit in Senology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Laura Cortesi
- Department of Oncology and Haematology, Modena Hospital University, Modena Italy (Cortesi)
| | - Simona Duranti
- Scientific Directorate, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
| | - Emanuela Lucci Cordisco
- Section of Genomic Medicine, Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; Medical Genetics Unit, Department of Laboratory and Infectious Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Alba Di Leone
- Breast Unit, Department of Woman and Child's Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Daniela Terribile
- Breast Unit, Department of Woman and Child's Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Ida Paris
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Antonio Giulio de Belvis
- Value Lab, Faculty of Economics, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; Critical Pathways and Outcomes Evaluation Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli", IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Armando Orlandi
- Unit of Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Fabio Marazzi
- UOC Oncological Radiotherapy, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Radiation Oncology and Haematology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Roma, Italy
| | - Margherita Muratore
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy; IRCCS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori "Dino Amadori"
| | - Giorgia Garganese
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy; Section of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
| | - Paola Fuso
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Filippo Paoletti
- Critical Pathways and Outcomes Evaluation Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli", IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Rossella Dell'Aquila
- Critical Pathways and Outcomes Evaluation Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario "A. Gemelli", IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Angelo Minucci
- Genomics Core Facility, Gemelli Science and Technology Park (GSTeP), Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| | - Giovanni Scambia
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Woman and Child Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy; Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - Gianluca Franceschini
- Breast Unit, Department of Woman and Child's Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy; Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - Riccardo Masetti
- Breast Unit, Department of Woman and Child's Health and Public Health, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy; Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| | - Maurizio Genuardi
- Section of Genomic Medicine, Department of Life Sciences and Public Health, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; Medical Genetics Unit, Department of Laboratory and Infectious Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tung N, Ricker C, Messersmith H, Balmaña J, Domchek S, Stoffel EM, Almhanna K, Arun B, Chavarri-Guerra Y, Cohen SA, Cragun D, Crew KD, Hall MJ, Idos G, Lopez G, Pal T, Pirzadeh-Miller S, Pritchard C, Rana HQ, Swami U, Vidal GA. Selection of Germline Genetic Testing Panels in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol 2024; 42:2599-2615. [PMID: 38759122 DOI: 10.1200/jco.24.00662] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2024] [Accepted: 04/03/2024] [Indexed: 05/19/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To guide use of multigene panels for germline genetic testing for patients with cancer. METHODS An ASCO Expert Panel convened to develop recommendations on the basis of a systematic review of guidelines, consensus statements, and studies of germline and somatic genetic testing. RESULTS Fifty-two guidelines and consensus statements met eligibility criteria for the primary search; 14 studies were identified for Clinical Question 4. RECOMMENDATIONS Patients should have a family history taken and recorded that includes details of cancers in first- and second-degree relatives and the patient's ethnicity. When more than one gene is relevant based on personal and/or family history, multigene panel testing should be offered. When considering what genes to include in the panel, the minimal panel should include the more strongly recommended genes from Table 1 and may include those less strongly recommended. A broader panel may be ordered when the potential benefits are clearly identified, and the potential harms from uncertain results should be mitigated. Patients who meet criteria for germline genetic testing should be offered germline testing regardless of results from tumor testing. Patients who would not normally be offered germline genetic testing based on personal and/or family history criteria but who have a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified by tumor testing in a gene listed in Table 2 under the outlined circumstances should be offered germline testing.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/molecular-testing-and-biomarkers-guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nadine Tung
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Sharon, MA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Banu Arun
- University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Yanin Chavarri-Guerra
- Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición, Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
| | | | | | | | | | - Gregory Idos
- City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA
| | - Ghecemy Lopez
- USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | - Tuya Pal
- Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Sara Pirzadeh-Miller
- Simmons Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX
| | | | | | - Umang Swami
- Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Gregory A Vidal
- The West Cancer Center and Research Institute and The University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center, Germantown, TN
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
McDevitt T, Durkie M, Arnold N, Burghel GJ, Butler S, Claes KBM, Logan P, Robinson R, Sheils K, Wolstenholme N, Hanson H, Turnbull C, Hume S. EMQN best practice guidelines for genetic testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Eur J Hum Genet 2024; 32:479-488. [PMID: 38443545 PMCID: PMC11061103 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-023-01507-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2023] [Revised: 11/07/2023] [Accepted: 11/21/2023] [Indexed: 03/07/2024] Open
Abstract
Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) is a genetic condition associated with increased risk of cancers. The past decade has brought about significant changes to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) diagnostic testing with new treatments, testing methods and strategies, and evolving information on genetic associations. These best practice guidelines have been produced to assist clinical laboratories in effectively addressing the complexities of HBOC testing, while taking into account advancements since the last guidelines were published in 2007. These guidelines summarise cancer risk data from recent studies for the most commonly tested high and moderate risk HBOC genes for laboratories to refer to as a guide. Furthermore, recommendations are provided for somatic and germline testing services with regards to clinical referral, laboratory analyses, variant interpretation, and reporting. The guidelines present recommendations where 'must' is assigned to advocate that the recommendation is essential; and 'should' is assigned to advocate that the recommendation is highly advised but may not be universally applicable. Recommendations are presented in the form of shaded italicised statements throughout the document, and in the form of a table in supplementary materials (Table S4). Finally, for the purposes of encouraging standardisation and aiding implementation of recommendations, example report wording covering the essential points to be included is provided for the most common HBOC referral and reporting scenarios. These guidelines are aimed primarily at genomic scientists working in diagnostic testing laboratories.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Trudi McDevitt
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin, Dublin, Ireland.
| | - Miranda Durkie
- Sheffield Diagnostic Genetics Service, North East and Yorkshire Genomic Laboratory Hub, Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust Western Bank, Sheffield, UK
| | - Norbert Arnold
- UKSH Campus Kiel, Gynecology and Obstetrics, Institut of Clinical Chemistry, Institut of Clinical Molecular Biology, Kiel, Germany
| | - George J Burghel
- Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, North West Genomic Laboratory Hub, Manchester, UK
| | - Samantha Butler
- Central and South Genomic Laboratory Hub, West Midlands Regional Genetics Laboratory, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Peter Logan
- HSCNI / Belfast Trust Laboratories, Regional Molecular Diagnostics Service, Belfast, Northern Ireland
| | - Rachel Robinson
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Genetics Department, Leeds, UK
| | | | | | - Helen Hanson
- St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Clinical Genetics, London, UK
| | | | - Stacey Hume
- University of British Columbia, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abdulkareem AA, Shirah BH, Bagabir HA, Haque A, Naseer MI. Whole exome sequencing of a novel homozygous missense variant in PALB2 gene leading to Fanconi anaemia complementation group. Biomed Rep 2024; 20:67. [PMID: 38476606 PMCID: PMC10928473 DOI: 10.3892/br.2024.1756] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2023] [Accepted: 01/31/2024] [Indexed: 03/14/2024] Open
Abstract
Partner and localiser of BRCA2 (PALB2), also known as FANCN, is a key tumour suppressor gene in maintaining genome integrity. Monoallelic mutations of PALB2 are associated with breast and overian cancers, while bi-allelic mutations cause Fanconi anaemia (FA). In the present study, whole exome sequencing (WES) identified a novel homozygous missense variant, NM_024675.3: c.3296C>G (p.Thr1099Arg) in PALB2 gene (OMIM: 610355) that caused FA with mild pulmonary valve stenosis and dysmorphic and atypical features, including lymphangiectasia, non-immune hydrops fetalis and right-sided pleural effusion in a preterm female baby. WES results were further validated by Sanger sequencing. WES improves the screening and detection of novel and causative genetic variants to improve management of disease. To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first reported FA case in a Saudi family with phenotypic atypical FA features. The results support the role of PALB2 gene and pathogenic variants that may cause clinical presentation of FA. Furthermore, the present results may establish a disease database, providing a groundwork for understanding the key genomic regions to control diseases resulting from consanguinity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Angham Abdulrhman Abdulkareem
- Center of Excellence in Genomic Medicine Research, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
- Faculty of Science, Department of Biochemistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
| | - Bader H. Shirah
- Department of Neuroscience, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Jeddah 11211, Saudi Arabia
| | - Hala Abubaker Bagabir
- Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Rabigh 25732, Saudi Arabia
| | - Absarul Haque
- King Fahd Medical Research Centre, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
- Department of Medical Laboratory Technology, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
| | - Muhammad Imran Naseer
- Center of Excellence in Genomic Medicine Research, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
- Department of Medical Laboratory Technology, Faculty of Applied Medical Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Piergentili R, Marinelli E, Cucinella G, Lopez A, Napoletano G, Gullo G, Zaami S. miR-125 in Breast Cancer Etiopathogenesis: An Emerging Role as a Biomarker in Differential Diagnosis, Regenerative Medicine, and the Challenges of Personalized Medicine. Noncoding RNA 2024; 10:16. [PMID: 38525735 PMCID: PMC10961778 DOI: 10.3390/ncrna10020016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2023] [Revised: 02/10/2024] [Accepted: 02/19/2024] [Indexed: 03/26/2024] Open
Abstract
Breast Cancer (BC) is one of the most common cancer types worldwide, and it is characterized by a complex etiopathogenesis, resulting in an equally complex classification of subtypes. MicroRNA (miRNA or miR) are small non-coding RNA molecules that have an essential role in gene expression and are significantly linked to tumor development and angiogenesis in different types of cancer. Recently, complex interactions among coding and non-coding RNA have been elucidated, further shedding light on the complexity of the roles these molecules fulfill in cancer formation. In this context, knowledge about the role of miR in BC has significantly improved, highlighting the deregulation of these molecules as additional factors influencing BC occurrence, development and classification. A considerable number of papers has been published over the past few years regarding the role of miR-125 in human pathology in general and in several types of cancer formation in particular. Interestingly, miR-125 family members have been recently linked to BC formation as well, and complex interactions (competing endogenous RNA networks, or ceRNET) between this molecule and target mRNA have been described. In this review, we summarize the state-of-the-art about research on this topic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roberto Piergentili
- Institute of Molecular Biology and Pathology, Italian National Research Council (CNR-IBPM), 00185 Rome, Italy;
| | - Enrico Marinelli
- Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, “Sapienza” University of Rome, 04100 Latina, Italy;
| | - Gaspare Cucinella
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Villa Sofia Cervello Hospital, University of Palermo, 90146 Palermo, Italy; (G.C.); (A.L.); (G.G.)
| | - Alessandra Lopez
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Villa Sofia Cervello Hospital, University of Palermo, 90146 Palermo, Italy; (G.C.); (A.L.); (G.G.)
| | - Gabriele Napoletano
- Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopedic Sciences, Section of Forensic Medicine, “Sapienza” University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy;
| | - Giuseppe Gullo
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Villa Sofia Cervello Hospital, University of Palermo, 90146 Palermo, Italy; (G.C.); (A.L.); (G.G.)
| | - Simona Zaami
- Department of Anatomical, Histological, Forensic and Orthopedic Sciences, Section of Forensic Medicine, “Sapienza” University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy;
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Mak S, Alexander JL, Clark SK, Hawkins M, Cuthill V, Latchford A, Monahan KJ. The Diagnostic Yield of Genetic Testing in Patients With Multiple Colorectal Adenomas: A Specialist Center Cohort Study. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2024; 15:e00645. [PMID: 37856205 PMCID: PMC10810582 DOI: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000645] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2023] [Accepted: 09/19/2023] [Indexed: 10/20/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Adenoma multiplicity is associated with increased colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. The utility of genetic testing in patients with multiple colorectal adenomas (MCRA) remains uncertain. We evaluated the diagnostic yield of mutations in polyposis- and CRC-associated genes in patients with MCRA. METHODS We performed a cross-sectional review of adult patients with 10-99 cumulative adenomas from the prospective database at the St Mark's Hospital Polyposis Registry and Family Cancer Clinic between 1999 and 2021. Genetic testing was performed for adenomatous polyposis-associated genes, hamartomatous polyposis-associated genes, and nonpolyposis colorectal cancer-associated genes. Clinicopathological outcomes were extracted for multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS Two hundred fifty-nine patients with MCRA (median age 61 [interquartile range 53-69] years) were identified. Sixty-six patients (25.5%) had a pathogenic variant or likely pathogenic variant, with APC and biallelic MUTYH mutations constituting the majority of identified pathogenic variant/likely pathogenic variants. Diagnostic yields were greater than 10% at any adenoma burden. In univariate analysis, higher adenoma burden and younger age were associated with higher yield (both P < 0.0001). In patients with MCRA with 10-19 adenomas without a relevant personal or family history of CRC, the diagnostic yield was nil. In multiple logistic regression analysis, higher adenoma burden, younger age, personal history of CRC, and first-degree familial history of CRC were associated with higher diagnostic yield. DISCUSSION Diagnostic yield of >10% at any adenoma burden supports current guidance for constitutional genetic testing in patients with MCRA, although the low yield in people older than 60 years with 10-19 adenomas suggests that a stratified approach might be appropriate.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sau Mak
- Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - James L. Alexander
- Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Susan K. Clark
- Family Cancer & Lynch Syndrome Clinic, St Mark's Centre for Familial Intestinal Cancer, St Mark's Hospital, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Menna Hawkins
- Family Cancer & Lynch Syndrome Clinic, St Mark's Centre for Familial Intestinal Cancer, St Mark's Hospital, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Victoria Cuthill
- Family Cancer & Lynch Syndrome Clinic, St Mark's Centre for Familial Intestinal Cancer, St Mark's Hospital, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Andrew Latchford
- Family Cancer & Lynch Syndrome Clinic, St Mark's Centre for Familial Intestinal Cancer, St Mark's Hospital, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Kevin J. Monahan
- Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK
- Family Cancer & Lynch Syndrome Clinic, St Mark's Centre for Familial Intestinal Cancer, St Mark's Hospital, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Matsuoka T, Yashiro M. Current status and perspectives of genetic testing in gastrointestinal cancer (Review). Oncol Lett 2024; 27:21. [PMID: 38058469 PMCID: PMC10696628 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2023.14155] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2023] [Accepted: 10/30/2023] [Indexed: 12/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Genetic testing has become widespread in daily medical care for gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. However, unlike breast cancer and non-small cell lung cancer, in which personalized medicine targeting various driver genes is standardized, the incidence of targeted gene abnormalities in GI cancers is low. Nevertheless, such abnormalities may be linked to therapeutic agents and the further development of therapeutic agents for personalized medicine for GI cancers is desired. A liquid biopsy is of great benefit in offering clinical decision support, in applications such as GI cancer screening, surgical interventions, monitoring disease status and enhancing patient survival outcomes, all of which would contribute to personalized medicine. Germline genetic testing is required for several types of GI cancer, which shows clinical indications of hereditary predisposition. The increasing use of multigene panel testing has redefined gene-cancer associations, and consequently the estimate of cancer risk that vary from low to high penetrance. Comprehensive genetic testing can enable the detection of novel treatment targets and the discovery of undefined multiple diagnostic/predictive markers, which may enhance the molecular-level understanding of GI cancers. Genetic testing can also aid the design of more appropriate and adequate genomic-driven therapies for patients who may benefit from other standardized therapeutic methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tasuku Matsuoka
- Department of Molecular Oncology and Therapeutics, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 5458585, Japan
| | - Masakazu Yashiro
- Department of Molecular Oncology and Therapeutics, Osaka Metropolitan University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka 5458585, Japan
- Institute of Medical Genetics, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka 5458585, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Valle L, Monahan KJ. Genetic predisposition to gastrointestinal polyposis: syndromes, tumour features, genetic testing, and clinical management. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024; 9:68-82. [PMID: 37931640 DOI: 10.1016/s2468-1253(23)00240-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/06/2023] [Revised: 07/19/2023] [Accepted: 07/20/2023] [Indexed: 11/08/2023]
Abstract
Gastrointestinal tract polyposis is characterised by the presence of multiple polyps, particularly in the colorectum, and encompasses both cancer predisposition genetic syndromes and non-syndromic clinical manifestations. The sources of the heterogeneity observed in polyposis syndromes relate to genetic cause, mode of inheritance, polyp burden and histological type, and spectrum and frequency of extracolonic manifestations. These features determine the clinical management of carriers, including strategies for cancer prevention and early detection, and oncological treatments. Despite substantial progress in identifying the genetic causes of polyposis, a large proportion of cases remain genetically unexplained. Although some of these cases might be due to lifestyle, environmental factors, or cancer treatments, it is likely that additional polyposis predisposition genes will be identified. This Review provides an overview of the known syndromes and genes, genetic testing, and clinical management of patients with polyposis, and recent advances and challenges in the field of gastrointestinal polyposis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Valle
- Hereditary Cancer Programme, Catalan Institute of Oncology, Oncobell Programme, IDIBELL, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain.
| | - Kevin J Monahan
- The St Mark's Centre for Familial Intestinal Cancer Lynch Syndrome & Family Cancer Clinic & Polyposis Registry, St Mark's Hospital, London, UK; Imperial College, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Enko D, Schaflinger E, Müller DJ. [Clinical Application Examples of a Next-Generation Sequencing based Multi-Genepanel Analysis]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2023; 148:695-702. [PMID: 37216946 DOI: 10.1055/a-2033-5329] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/24/2023]
Abstract
This review provides an overview of clinically useful applications of a next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based multi-gene panel testing strategy in the areas of oncology, hereditary tumor syndromes, and hematology. In the case of solid tumors (e.g. lung carcinoma, colon-rectal carcinoma), the detection of somatic mutations contributes not only to a better diagnostic but also therapeutic stratification of those affected. The increasing genetic complexity of hereditary tumor syndromes (e.g. breast and ovarian carcinoma, lynch syndrome/polyposis) requires a multi-gene panel analysis of germline mutations in affected families. Another useful indication for a multi-gene panel diagnostics and prognosis assessment are acute and chronic myeloid diseases. The criteria of the WHO-classification and the European LeukemiaNet-prognosis system for acute myeloid leukemia can only be met by a multi-gene panel test strategy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dietmar Enko
- Medizinische Universität Graz Klinisches Institut für Medizinische und Chemische Labordiagnostik, Graz, Austria
| | - Erich Schaflinger
- Institut für Humangenetik, Medizinische Universität Graz, Neue Stiftingtalstraße 2, 8010 Graz, Austria
| | - Daniel J Müller
- Klinisches Institut für Pharmakogenetische Wissenschaft, Cambell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Zentrum für Suchtkrankheit und psychische Gesundheit, College Street 250, Toronto, ON M5T 1R8, Toronto, Kanada
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Al-Sukhun S, Masannat Y, Wegman-Ostrosky T, Shrikhande SV, Manirakiza A, Fadelu T, Rebbeck TR. Germline Testing Around the Globe: Challenges in Different Practice Settings. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2023; 43:e390522. [PMID: 37220318 DOI: 10.1200/edbk_390522] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/25/2023]
Abstract
Cancer is an increasing global public health burden. Lately, more emphasis has emerged on the importance of heredity in cancer, mostly driven by the introduction of germline genetic variants-directed therapeutics. It is true that 40% of cancer risk is attributed to modifiable environmental and lifestyle factors; still, 16% of cancers could be heritable, accounting for 2.9 of the 18.1 million cases diagnosed worldwide. At least two third of those will be diagnosed in countries with limited resources-low- and middle-income countries, especially where high rates of consanguine marriage and early age at diagnosis are already prevalent. Both are hallmarks of hereditary cancer. This creates a new opportunity for prevention, early detection, and recently therapeutic intervention. However, this opportunity is challenged by many obstacles along the path to addressing germline testing in patients with cancer in the clinic worldwide. Global collaboration and expertise exchange are important to bridge the knowledge gap and facilitate practical implementation. Adapting existing guidelines and prioritization according to local resources are essential to address the unique needs and overcome the unique barriers of each society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Yazan Masannat
- Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Scotland, United Kingdom
- The University of Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | - Temidayo Fadelu
- Division of Population Sciences, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Timothy R Rebbeck
- Division of Population Sciences, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
- Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Rao ND, Kaganovsky J, Malouf EA, Coe S, Huey J, Tsinajinne D, Hassan S, King KM, Fullerton SM, Chen AT, Shirts BH. Diagnostic yield of genetic screening in a diverse, community-ascertained cohort. Genome Med 2023; 15:26. [PMID: 37069702 PMCID: PMC10111761 DOI: 10.1186/s13073-023-01174-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2022] [Accepted: 03/16/2023] [Indexed: 04/19/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Population screening for genetic risk of adult-onset preventable conditions has been proposed as an attractive public health intervention. Screening unselected individuals can identify many individuals who will not be identified through current genetic testing guidelines. METHODS We sought to evaluate enrollment in and diagnostic yield of population genetic screening in a resource-limited setting among a diverse population. We developed a low-cost, short-read next-generation sequencing panel of 25 genes that had 98.4% sensitivity and 99.98% specificity compared to diagnostic panels. We used email invitations to recruit a diverse cohort of patients in the University of Washington Medical Center system unselected for personal or family history of hereditary disease. Participants were sent a saliva collection kit in the mail with instructions on kit use and return. Results were returned using a secure online portal. Enrollment and diagnostic yield were assessed overall and across race and ethnicity groups. RESULTS Overall, 40,857 people were invited and 2889 (7.1%) enrolled. Enrollment varied across race and ethnicity groups, with the lowest enrollment among African American individuals (3.3%) and the highest among Multiracial or Other Race individuals (13.0%). Of 2864 enrollees who received screening results, 106 actionable variants were identified in 103 individuals (3.6%). Of those who screened positive, 30.1% already knew about their results from prior genetic testing. The diagnostic yield was 74 new, actionable genetic findings (2.6%). The addition of more recently identified cancer risk genes increased the diagnostic yield of screening. CONCLUSIONS Population screening can identify additional individuals that could benefit from prevention, but challenges in recruitment and sample collection will reduce actual enrollment and yield. These challenges should not be overlooked in intervention planning or in cost and benefit analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nandana D Rao
- Institute for Public Health Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Jailanie Kaganovsky
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Rm NW120, Box 357110 1959 NE Pacific Street, WA, 98195, Seattle, USA
| | - Emily A Malouf
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Rm NW120, Box 357110 1959 NE Pacific Street, WA, 98195, Seattle, USA
| | - Sandy Coe
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Rm NW120, Box 357110 1959 NE Pacific Street, WA, 98195, Seattle, USA
| | - Jennifer Huey
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Rm NW120, Box 357110 1959 NE Pacific Street, WA, 98195, Seattle, USA
| | - Darwin Tsinajinne
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Rm NW120, Box 357110 1959 NE Pacific Street, WA, 98195, Seattle, USA
| | - Sajida Hassan
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Rm NW120, Box 357110 1959 NE Pacific Street, WA, 98195, Seattle, USA
| | - Kristine M King
- Institute for Public Health Genetics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Stephanie M Fullerton
- Department of Bioethics & Humanities, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Annie T Chen
- Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Brian H Shirts
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Rm NW120, Box 357110 1959 NE Pacific Street, WA, 98195, Seattle, USA.
- Brotman Baty Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Okunola AO, Baatjes KJ, Zemlin AE, Torrorey-Sawe R, Conradie M, Kidd M, Erasmus RT, van der Merwe NC, Kotze MJ. Pathology-supported genetic testing for the application of breast cancer pharmacodiagnostics: family counselling, lifestyle adjustments and change of medication. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2023; 23:431-443. [PMID: 37060281 DOI: 10.1080/14737159.2023.2203815] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pathology-supported genetic testing (PSGT) enables transitioning of risk stratification from the study population to the individual. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We provide an overview of the translational research performed in postmenopausal breast cancer patients at increased risk of osteoporosis due to aromatase inhibitor therapy, as the indication for referral. Both tumour histopathology and blood biochemistry levels were assessed to identify actionable disease pathways using whole exome sequencing (WES). RESULTS The causes and consequences of inadequate vitamin D levels as a modifiable risk factor for bone loss were highlighted in 116 patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Comparison of lifestyle factors and WES data between cases with vitamin D levels at extreme upper and lower ranges identified obesity as a major discriminating factor, with the lowest levels recorded during winter. Functional polymorphisms in the vitamin D receptor gene contributed independently to therapy-related osteoporosis risk. In a patient with invasive lobular carcinoma, genetic counselling facilitated investigation of the potential modifying effect of a rare CDH1 variant co-occurring withBRCA1 c.66dup (p.Glu23ArgfsTer18). CONCLUSION Validation of PSGT as a three-pronged pharmacodiagnostics tool for generation of adaptive reports and data reinterpretation during follow-up represents a new paradigm in personalised medicine, exposing significant limitations to overcome.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Abisola O Okunola
- Division of Chemical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Karin J Baatjes
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Annalise E Zemlin
- Division of Chemical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
- Division of Chemical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University and the National Health Laboratory Service, Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Rispah Torrorey-Sawe
- Division of Chemical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
- Department of Immunology, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Moi University, Eldoret, Kenya
| | - Magda Conradie
- Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Martin Kidd
- Centre for Statistical Consultation, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
| | - Rajiv T Erasmus
- Division of Chemical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Nerina C van der Merwe
- Division of Human Genetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa
- Division of Human Genetics, National Health Laboratory Service, Universitas Hospital, Bloemfontein, South Africa
| | - Maritha J Kotze
- Division of Chemical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa
- Division of Chemical Pathology, Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University and the National Health Laboratory Service, Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Hidalgo Mayoral I, Almeida Santiago A, Sánchez-Zapardiel JM, Hidalgo Calero B, de la Hoya M, Gómez-Sanz A, de Miguel Reyes M, Robles L. Unexpected Findings in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome: Low-Level Constitutional Mosaicism in BRCA2. Genes (Basel) 2023; 14:502. [PMID: 36833429 PMCID: PMC9957471 DOI: 10.3390/genes14020502] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2023] [Revised: 02/13/2023] [Accepted: 02/14/2023] [Indexed: 02/18/2023] Open
Abstract
Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) is a clinical entity characterized by an increased risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. The genetic diagnosis is based on the identification of heterozygous germinal variants in HBOC susceptibility genes. However, it has recently been described that constitutional mosaic variants can contribute to the aetiology of HBOC. In constitutional mosaicism, individuals have at least two genotypically distinct populations of cells that arise from an early post-zygote event. The mutational event occurs early enough in development to affect several tissues. It is detected in germinal genetic studies as low variant allele frequency (VAF) variants (<30%) that are generally overlooked during the prioritization process. Constitutional mosaic variants can affect both somatic and germinal cells, and thus can be passed to the offspring and have important consequences for genetic counselling. In this work, we report the c.9648+1G>A mosaic variant in the BRCA2 gene and propose a diagnostic algorithm to deal with potential mosaic findings identified by Next Generation Sequencing (NGS).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Irene Hidalgo Mayoral
- Hereditary Cancer Laboratory, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, 28041 Madrid, Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital 12 de Octubre (imas12), 28041 Madrid, Spain
| | - Ainhoa Almeida Santiago
- Hereditary Cancer Laboratory, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, 28041 Madrid, Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital 12 de Octubre (imas12), 28041 Madrid, Spain
| | | | | | - Miguel de la Hoya
- Molecular Oncology Laboratory, Instituto de Investigacion Sanitaria San Carlos, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, 28040 Madrid, Spain
| | - Alicia Gómez-Sanz
- Molecular Oncology Laboratory, Instituto de Investigacion Sanitaria San Carlos, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, 28040 Madrid, Spain
| | | | - Luis Robles
- Medical Oncology Service, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, 28041 Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Morgan RD, Burghel GJ, Flaum N, Bulman M, Smith P, Clamp AR, Hasan J, Mitchell CL, Salih Z, Woodward ER, Lalloo F, Crosbie EJ, Edmondson RJ, Schlecht H, Jayson GC, Evans DGR. Is Reflex Germline BRCA1/2 Testing Necessary in Women Diagnosed with Non-Mucinous High-Grade Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Aged 80 Years or Older? Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15:730. [PMID: 36765687 PMCID: PMC9913244 DOI: 10.3390/cancers15030730] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2022] [Revised: 01/21/2023] [Accepted: 01/23/2023] [Indexed: 01/26/2023] Open
Abstract
Women diagnosed with non-mucinous high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) in England are often reflex-tested for germline and tumour BRCA1/2 variants. The value of germline BRCA1/2 testing in women diagnosed aged ≥80 is questionable. We performed an observational study of all women diagnosed with non-mucinous high-grade EOC who underwent germline and tumour BRCA1/2 testing by the North West of England Genomic Laboratory Hub. A subgroup of women also underwent germline testing using a panel of homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes and/or tumour testing for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) using Myriad's myChoice® companion diagnostic. Seven-hundred-two patients successfully underwent both germline and tumour BRCA1/2 testing. Of these, 48 were diagnosed with non-mucinous high-grade EOC aged ≥80. In this age group, somatic BRCA1/2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPVs) were detected nine times more often than germline BRCA1/2 PV/LPVs. The only germline PV reported in a patient aged ≥80 was detected in germline and tumour DNA (BRCA2 c.4478_4481del). No patient aged ≥80 had a germline PV/LPVs in a non-BRCA1/2 HRR gene. Thirty-eight percent of patients aged ≥80 had a tumour positive for HRD. Our data suggest that tumour BRCA1/2 and HRD testing is adequate for patients diagnosed with non-mucinous high-grade EOC aged ≥80, with germline BRCA1/2 testing reserved for women with a tumour BRCA1/2 PV/LPVs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert D. Morgan
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - George J. Burghel
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, North West Genomic Laboratory Hub, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Nicola Flaum
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - Michael Bulman
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, North West Genomic Laboratory Hub, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Philip Smith
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, North West Genomic Laboratory Hub, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Andrew R. Clamp
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - Jurjees Hasan
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
| | - Claire L. Mitchell
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
| | - Zena Salih
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
| | - Emma R. Woodward
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Fiona Lalloo
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Emma J. Crosbie
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Richard J. Edmondson
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Helene Schlecht
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, North West Genomic Laboratory Hub, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| | - Gordon C. Jayson
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4BX, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - D. Gareth R. Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, North West Genomic Laboratory Hub, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Saint Mary’s Hospital, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Genetic Predisposition to Colorectal Cancer: How Many and Which Genes to Test? Int J Mol Sci 2023; 24:ijms24032137. [PMID: 36768460 PMCID: PMC9916931 DOI: 10.3390/ijms24032137] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/31/2022] [Revised: 01/11/2023] [Accepted: 01/16/2023] [Indexed: 01/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is one of the most common tumors, and genetic predisposition is one of the key risk factors in the development of this malignancy. Lynch syndrome and familial adenomatous polyposis are the best-known genetic diseases associated with hereditary colorectal cancer. However, some other genetic disorders confer an increased risk of colorectal cancer, such as Li-Fraumeni syndrome (TP53 gene), MUTYH-associated polyposis (MUTYH gene), Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (STK11 gene), Cowden syndrome (PTEN gene), and juvenile polyposis syndrome (BMPR1A and SMAD4 genes). Moreover, the recent advances in molecular techniques, in particular Next-Generation Sequencing, have led to the identification of many new genes involved in the predisposition to colorectal cancers, such as RPS20, POLE, POLD1, AXIN2, NTHL1, MSH3, RNF43 and GREM1. In this review, we summarized the past and more recent findings in the field of cancer predisposition genes, with insights into the role of the encoded proteins and into the associated genetic disorders. Furthermore, we discussed the possible clinical utility of genetic testing in terms of prevention protocols and therapeutic approaches.
Collapse
|
16
|
Flaum N, Crosbie EJ, Edmondson R, Woodward ER, Lalloo F, Smith MJ, Schlecht H, Evans DG. High detection rate from genetic testing in BRCA-negative women with familial epithelial ovarian cancer. Genet Med 2022; 24:2578-2586. [PMID: 36169650 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.08.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2022] [Revised: 08/23/2022] [Accepted: 08/23/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is associated with pathogenic variants (PVs) in homologous recombination and/or mismatch repair genes. We aimed to review the testing of women with familial EOC at our center. METHODS Women with familial EOC (≥2 EOC in family, including index case) referred to our center between 1993 and 2021 were included. Genetic testing (BRCA/Lynch syndrome screening, exome sequencing, panel testing, 100,000 Genome Project, and NIHR BioResource genome sequencing) and clinical demographic, diagnosis, and survival data were reviewed. RESULTS Of 277, 128 (46.2%) women were BRCA heterozygotes (BRCA1: 89, BRCA2: 39). The detection rate in BRCA-negative women was 21.8%; the most commonly affected gene was BRIP1 (5.9%). The non-BRCA detection rate was significantly higher in families with 2 affected members with EOC only (22.4%) than the families with ≥3 (11.1%) affected members (odds ratio = 9.9, 95% CI = 1.6-105.2, P = .0075). Overall, 112 different PVs in 12 homologous recombination/mismatch repair genes were detected in 150 of 277 (54.2%) unrelated women. CONCLUSION This is the largest report of women with familial EOC undergoing wider testing to date. One-fifth of BRCA-negative women were heterozygous for a PV in a potentially actionable gene. Wider genetic testing of women with familial EOC is essential to optimize their treatment and prevention of disease in family members.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Flaum
- Division of Evolution, Infection and Genomics, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, United Kingdom; North West Genomics Laboratory Hub, Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, United Kingdom.
| | - Emma J Crosbie
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Uunited Kingdom; Division of Gynaecology, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Richard Edmondson
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Uunited Kingdom; Division of Gynaecology, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Emma R Woodward
- Clinical Genetics Service, Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Fiona Lalloo
- Clinical Genetics Service, Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Miriam J Smith
- Division of Evolution, Infection and Genomics, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, United Kingdom; North West Genomics Laboratory Hub, Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, United Kingdom
| | - Helene Schlecht
- North West Genomics Laboratory Hub, Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, United Kingdom
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Division of Evolution, Infection and Genomics, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, United Kingdom; North West Genomics Laboratory Hub, Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, United Kingdom; Prevention Breast Cancer Centre and Nightingale Breast Screening Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Hanson H, Kulkarni A, Loong L, Kavanaugh G, Torr B, Allen S, Ahmed M, Antoniou AC, Cleaver R, Dabir T, Evans DG, Golightly E, Jewell R, Kohut K, Manchanda R, Murray A, Murray J, Ong KR, Rosenthal AN, Woodward ER, Eccles DM, Turnbull C, Tischkowitz M, Lalloo F. UK consensus recommendations for clinical management of cancer risk for women with germline pathogenic variants in cancer predisposition genes: RAD51C, RAD51D, BRIP1 and PALB2. J Med Genet 2022; 60:417-429. [PMID: 36411032 PMCID: PMC10176381 DOI: 10.1136/jmg-2022-108898] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2022] [Accepted: 10/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
Germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in the cancer predisposition genes BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C are identified in approximately 15% of patients with ovarian cancer (OC). While there are clear guidelines around clinical management of cancer risk in patients with GPV in BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6, there are few guidelines on how to manage the more moderate OC risk in patients with GPV in BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C, with clinical questions about appropriateness and timing of risk-reducing gynaecological surgery. Furthermore, while recognition of RAD51C and RAD51D as OC predisposition genes has been established for several years, an association with breast cancer (BC) has only more recently been described and clinical management of this risk has been unclear. With expansion of genetic testing of these genes to all patients with non-mucinous OC, new data on BC risk and improved estimates of OC risk, the UK Cancer Genetics Group and CanGene-CanVar project convened a 2-day meeting to reach a national consensus on clinical management of BRIP1, PALB2, RAD51D and RAD51C carriers in clinical practice. In this paper, we present a summary of the processes used to reach and agree on a consensus, as well as the key recommendations from the meeting.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen Hanson
- South West Thames Regional Genetic Services, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Anjana Kulkarni
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Lucy Loong
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Grace Kavanaugh
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Bethany Torr
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Sophie Allen
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Munaza Ahmed
- North East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Ruth Cleaver
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK
| | - Tabib Dabir
- Northern Ireland Regional Genetics Centre, Belfast City Hospital, Belfast, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Ellen Golightly
- Lothian Menopause Service, Chalmers Sexual Health Centre, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Rosalyn Jewell
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Kelly Kohut
- South West Thames Regional Genetic Services, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Ranjit Manchanda
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Barts CRUK Cancer Centre, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Alex Murray
- All Wales Medical Genomics Services, University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
| | - Jennie Murray
- South East Scotland Clinical Genetics Service, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Kai-Ren Ong
- West Midlands Regional Genetics Service, Birmingham Women's Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - Adam N Rosenthal
- Department of Gynaecological Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Emma Roisin Woodward
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Diana M Eccles
- Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| | - Clare Turnbull
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- Department of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Fiona Lalloo
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Central Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Yngvadottir B, Andreou A, Bassaganyas L, Larionov A, Cornish AJ, Chubb D, Saunders CN, Smith PS, Zhang H, Cole Y, Research Consortium GE, Larkin J, Browning L, Turajlic S, Litchfield K, Houlston RS, Maher ER. Frequency of pathogenic germline variants in cancer susceptibility genes in 1336 renal cell carcinoma cases. Hum Mol Genet 2022; 31:3001-3011. [PMID: 35441217 PMCID: PMC9433729 DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddac089] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2022] [Revised: 03/25/2022] [Accepted: 04/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) occurs in a number of cancer predisposition syndromes, but the genetic architecture of susceptibility to RCC is not well defined. We investigated the frequency of pathogenic and likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline variants in cancer susceptibility genes (CSGs) within a large series of unselected RCC participants. Whole-genome sequencing data on 1336 RCC participants and 5834 controls recruited to the UK 100 000 Genomes Project, a nationwide multicentre study, was analyzed to identify rare P/LP short variants (single nucleotide variants and insertions/deletions ranging from 1 to 50 base pairs) and structural variants in 121 CSGs. Among 1336 RCC participants [mean: 61.3 years (±12 SD), range: 13-88 years; 64% male], 85 participants [6.4%; 95% CI (5.1, 7.8)] had one or more P/LP germline variant in a wider range of CSGs than previously recognized. A further 64 intragenic variants in CSGs previously associated with RCC were classified as a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) (24 'hot VUSs') and were considered to be of potential clinical relevance as further evaluation might results in their reclassification. Most patients with P variants in well-established CSGs known to predispose to renal cell carcinoma (RCC-CSGs) were aged <50 years. Burden test analysis for filtered variants in CSGs demonstrated a significant excess of CHEK2 variants in European RCC participants compared with the healthy European controls (P = 0.0019). Approximately, 6% of the patients with RCC unselected for family history have a germline variant requiring additional follow-up analysis. To improve diagnostic yield, we suggest expanding the panel of RCC-CSGs tested to include CHEK2 and all SDHx subunits and raising the eligibility criteria for age-based testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bryndis Yngvadottir
- Department of Medical Genetics, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Avgi Andreou
- Department of Medical Genetics, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Laia Bassaganyas
- Department of Medical Genetics, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Alexey Larionov
- Department of Medical Genetics, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
- School of Water, Energy and Environment, Cranfield University, Cranfield, MK43 0AL, UK
| | - Alex J Cornish
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SW7 3RP, UK
| | - Daniel Chubb
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SW7 3RP, UK
| | - Charlie N Saunders
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SW7 3RP, UK
| | - Philip S Smith
- Department of Medical Genetics, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Huairen Zhang
- Department of Medical Genetics, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Yasemin Cole
- Department of Medical Genetics, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Genomics England Research Consortium
- Genomics England, Queen Mary University of London, Dawson Hall, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK
- William Harvey Research Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - James Larkin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Renal and Skin Units, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, SW3 6JJ, UK
- Melanoma and Kidney Cancer Team, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SW7 3RP, UK
| | - Lisa Browning
- Department of Cellular Pathology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, OX4 2PG, UK
| | - Samra Turajlic
- Department of Medical Oncology, Renal and Skin Units, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, SW3 6JJ, UK
- Melanoma and Kidney Cancer Team, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SW7 3RP, UK
- Cancer Dynamics Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, NW1 1AT, UK
| | - Kevin Litchfield
- Department of Oncology, University College London Cancer Institute, Paul O’Gorman Building, London, WC1E 6DD, UK
| | - Richard S Houlston
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, SW7 3RP, UK
| | - Eamonn R Maher
- Department of Medical Genetics, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
DiStefano MT, Goehringer S, Babb L, Alkuraya FS, Amberger J, Amin M, Austin-Tse C, Balzotti M, Berg JS, Birney E, Bocchini C, Bruford EA, Coffey AJ, Collins H, Cunningham F, Daugherty LC, Einhorn Y, Firth HV, Fitzpatrick DR, Foulger RE, Goldstein J, Hamosh A, Hurles MR, Leigh SE, Leong IUS, Maddirevula S, Martin CL, McDonagh EM, Olry A, Puzriakova A, Radtke K, Ramos EM, Rath A, Riggs ER, Roberts AM, Rodwell C, Snow C, Stark Z, Tahiliani J, Tweedie S, Ware JS, Weller P, Williams E, Wright CF, Yates TM, Rehm HL. The Gene Curation Coalition: A global effort to harmonize gene-disease evidence resources. Genet Med 2022; 24:1732-1742. [PMID: 35507016 PMCID: PMC7613247 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.04.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2021] [Revised: 04/06/2022] [Accepted: 04/07/2022] [Indexed: 01/04/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Several groups and resources provide information that pertains to the validity of gene-disease relationships used in genomic medicine and research; however, universal standards and terminologies to define the evidence base for the role of a gene in disease and a single harmonized resource were lacking. To tackle this issue, the Gene Curation Coalition (GenCC) was formed. METHODS The GenCC drafted harmonized definitions for differing levels of gene-disease validity on the basis of existing resources, and performed a modified Delphi survey with 3 rounds to narrow the list of terms. The GenCC also developed a unified database to display curated gene-disease validity assertions from its members. RESULTS On the basis of 241 survey responses from the genetics community, a consensus term set was chosen for grading gene-disease validity and database submissions. As of December 2021, the database contained 15,241 gene-disease assertions on 4569 unique genes from 12 submitters. When comparing submissions to the database from distinct sources, conflicts in assertions of gene-disease validity ranged from 5.3% to 13.4%. CONCLUSION Terminology standardization, sharing of gene-disease validity classifications, and resolution of curation conflicts will facilitate collaborations across international curation efforts and in turn, improve consistency in genetic testing and variant interpretation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marina T DiStefano
- Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA; Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA
| | | | - Lawrence Babb
- Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA
| | - Fowzan S Alkuraya
- Department of Translational Genomics, Center for Genomic Medicine, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - Joanna Amberger
- Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), Department of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | | | - Christina Austin-Tse
- Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA; Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Mass General Brigham Laboratory for Molecular Medicine, Cambridge, MA
| | | | - Jonathan S Berg
- Department of Genetics, UNC School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Ewan Birney
- European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Carol Bocchini
- Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), Department of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | - Elspeth A Bruford
- HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC), European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Department of Haematology, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Alison J Coffey
- Illumina Clinical Services Laboratory, Illumina Inc, San Diego, CA
| | - Heather Collins
- National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD; ICF International Inc, Fairfax, VA
| | - Fiona Cunningham
- Genome Interpretation, Genome Assembly and Annotation (GAA), European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Louise C Daugherty
- Genomics England, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Healx Ltd, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | | | - Helen V Firth
- Department of Medical Genetics, Addenbrooke's Treatment Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - David R Fitzpatrick
- MRC Human Genetics Unit, MRC Institute of Genetics and Cancer, College of Medicine & Veterinary Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Rebecca E Foulger
- Genomics England, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; SciBite Limited, BioData Innovation Centre, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Jennifer Goldstein
- Department of Genetics, UNC School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
| | - Ada Hamosh
- Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), Department of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
| | | | - Sarah E Leigh
- Genomics England, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ivone U S Leong
- Genomics England, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sateesh Maddirevula
- Department of Translational Genomics, Center for Genomic Medicine, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | | | - Ellen M McDonagh
- Genomics England, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Open Targets, EMBL-EBI, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom
| | | | - Arina Puzriakova
- Genomics England, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Erin M Ramos
- National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health Bethesda, MD
| | - Ana Rath
- INSERM, US14 - Orphanet, Paris, France
| | | | - Angharad M Roberts
- National Heart and Lung Institute & MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Catherine Snow
- Genomics England, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Susan Tweedie
- HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC), European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - James S Ware
- Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA; National Heart and Lung Institute & MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Phillip Weller
- Autism & Developmental Medicine Institute, Geisinger, Danville, PA
| | - Eleanor Williams
- Genomics England, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Caroline F Wright
- Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital, Exeter, United Kingdom
| | - Thabo Michael Yates
- MRC Human Genetics Unit, MRC Institute of Genetics and Cancer, College of Medicine & Veterinary Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Heidi L Rehm
- Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA; Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Murphy A, Solomons J, Risby P, Gabriel J, Bedenham T, Johnson M, Atkinson N, Bailey AA, Bird‐Lieberman E, Leedham SJ, East JE, Biswas S. Germline variant testing in serrated polyposis syndrome. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 37:861-869. [PMID: 35128723 PMCID: PMC9305167 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15791] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2021] [Revised: 12/13/2021] [Accepted: 01/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/09/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is now known to be the commonest polyposis syndrome. Previous analyses for germline variants have shown no consistent positive findings. To exclude other polyposis syndromes, 2019 British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines advise gene panel testing if the patient is under 50 years, there are multiple affected individuals within a family, or there is dysplasia within any of the polyps. METHODS A database of SPS patients was established at the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Patients were referred for genetic assessment based on personal and family history and patient preference. The majority were tested for a hereditary colorectal cancer panel including MUTYH, APC, PTEN, SMAD4, BMPR1A, STK11, NTLH1, POLD1, POLE, GREM1 (40-kb duplication), PMS2, and Lynch syndrome mismatch repair genes. RESULTS One hundred and seventy-three patients were diagnosed with SPS based on World Health Organization 2019 criteria between February 2010 and December 2020. The mean age of diagnosis was 54.2 ± 16.8 years. Seventy-three patients underwent genetic testing and 15/73 (20.5%) were found to have germline variants, of which 7/73 (9.6%) had a pathogenic variant (MUTYH n = 2, SMAD4 n = 1, CHEK2 n = 2, POLD1 n = 1, and RNF43 n = 1). Only 60% (9/15) of these patients would have been recommended for gene panel testing according to current BSG guidelines. CONCLUSIONS A total of 20.5% of SPS patients tested were affected by heterozygous germline variants, including previously unreported associations with CHEK2 and POLD1. This led to a change in management in seven patients (9.6%). Current recommendations may miss SPS associated with germline variants, which is more common than previously anticipated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aisling Murphy
- Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research CentreUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| | - Joyce Solomons
- Oxford Centre for Genomic Medicine, Nuffield Orthopaedic CentreOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustOxfordUK
| | - Peter Risby
- Oxford Centre for Genomic Medicine, Nuffield Orthopaedic CentreOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustOxfordUK
| | - Jessica Gabriel
- Oxford Regional Genetics Laboratories, Churchill HospitalOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustOxfordUK
| | - Tina Bedenham
- Oxford Regional Genetics Laboratories, Churchill HospitalOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustOxfordUK
| | - Michael Johnson
- Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research CentreUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| | - Nathan Atkinson
- New Zealand Familial Gastrointestinal Cancer RegistryAuckland City HospitalAucklandNew Zealand
| | - Adam A Bailey
- Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research CentreUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| | - Elizabeth Bird‐Lieberman
- Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research CentreUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| | - Simon J Leedham
- Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research CentreUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK,Intestinal Stem Cell Biology Lab, Wellcome Centre for Human GeneticsUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| | - James E East
- Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research CentreUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| | - Sujata Biswas
- Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research CentreUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK,Gastroenterology DepartmentBuckinghamshire Healthcare NHS TrustUK
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
McGuigan A, Whitworth J, Andreou A, Hearn T, Tischkowitz M, Maher ER. Multilocus Inherited Neoplasia Allele Syndrome (MINAS): an update. Eur J Hum Genet 2022; 30:265-270. [PMID: 34983940 PMCID: PMC8904543 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-021-01013-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2021] [Revised: 10/14/2021] [Accepted: 11/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Multi-locus Inherited Neoplasia Allele Syndrome (MINAS) refers to individuals with germline pathogenic variants in two or more cancer susceptibility genes(CSGs). With increased use of exome/genome sequencing it would be predicted that detection of MINAS would become more frequent. Here we review recent progress in knowledge of MINAS. A systematic literature search for reports of individuals with germline pathogenic variants in 2 or more of 94 CSGs was performed. In addition, participants with multiple primary tumours who underwent genome sequencing as part of the Rare Disease arm of the UK 100,000 Genomes Project were interrogated to detect additional cases. We identified 385 MINAS cases (211 reported in the last 5 years, 6 from 100,000 genomes participants). Most (287/385) cases contained at least one pathogenic variant in either BRCA1 or BRCA2. 108/385 MINAS cases had multiple primary tumours at presentation and a subset of cases presented unusual multiple tumour phenotypes. We conclude that, as predicted, increasing numbers of individuals with MINAS are being have been reported but, except for individuals with BRCA1/BRCA2 MINAS, individual CSG combinations are generally rare. In many cases it appears that the clinical phenotype is that which would be expected from the effects of the constituent CSG variants acting independently. However, in some instances the presence of unusual tumour phenotypes and/or multiple primary tumours suggests that there may be complex interactions between the relevant MINAS CSGs. Systematic reporting of MINAS cases in a MINAS database (e.g. https://databases.lovd.nl/shared/diseases/04296 ) will facilitate more accurate prognostic predictions for specific CSG combinations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony McGuigan
- Department of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
| | - James Whitworth
- Department of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Avgi Andreou
- Department of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Timothy Hearn
- Department of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | | | - Marc Tischkowitz
- Department of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK
| | - Eamonn R Maher
- Department of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, CB2 0QQ, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Menko FH, Monkhorst K, Hogervorst FB, Rosenberg EH, Adank M, Ruijs MW, Bleiker EM, Sonke GS, Russell NS, Oldenburg HS, van der Kolk LE. Challenges in breast cancer genetic testing. A call for novel forms of multidisciplinary care and long-term evaluation. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2022; 176:103642. [DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2022.103642] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2021] [Revised: 02/04/2022] [Accepted: 02/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
|
23
|
Andoni T, Wiggins J, Robinson R, Charlton R, Sandberg M, Eeles R. Half of germline pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants found on panel tests do not fulfil NHS testing criteria. Sci Rep 2022; 12:2507. [PMID: 35190596 PMCID: PMC8861039 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-06376-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2021] [Accepted: 01/20/2022] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Genetic testing for cancer predisposition has been curtailed by the cost of sequencing, and testing has been restricted by eligibility criteria. As the cost of sequencing decreases, the question of expanding multi-gene cancer panels to a broader population arises. We evaluated how many additional actionable genetic variants are returned by unrestricted panel testing in the private sector compared to those which would be returned by adhering to current NHS eligibility criteria. We reviewed 152 patients referred for multi-gene cancer panels in the private sector between 2014 and 2016. Genetic counselling and disclosure of all results was standard of care provided by the Consultant. Every panel conducted was compared to current eligibility criteria. A germline pathogenic / likely pathogenic variant (P/LP), in a gene relevant to the personal or family history of cancer, was detected in 15 patients (detection rate of 10%). 46.7% of those found to have the P/LP variants (7 of 15), or 4.6% of the entire set (7 of 152), did not fulfil NHS eligibility criteria. 46.7% of P/LP variants in this study would have been missed by national testing guidelines, all of which were actionable. However, patients who do not fulfil eligibility criteria have a higher Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS) burden. We demonstrated that the current England NHS threshold for genetic testing is missing pathogenic variants which would alter management in 4.6%, nearly 1 in 20 individuals. However, the clinical service burden that would ensue is a detection of VUS of 34%.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tala Andoni
- The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
| | | | - Rachel Robinson
- Leeds Genetics Laboratory, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| | - Ruth Charlton
- Leeds Genetics Laboratory, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Brédart A, Kop JL, De Pauw A, Cano A, Dick J, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Dolbeault S. Préoccupations et besoins d’aide psychologiques chez les femmes à risque génétique de cancer du sein ou de l’ovaire : une étude prospective observationnelle en Allemagne, Espagne et France. PSYCHO-ONCOLOGIE 2022. [DOI: 10.3166/pson-2021-0169] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
Objectifs et contexte : L’arrivée des tests de panel de gènes a augmenté la complexité de la communication en consultation d’oncogénétique. Une attention quant à l’impact de cette communication sur les préoccupations et les besoins d’aide psychologique s’avère d’autant plus indispensable. Cette étude vise à en quantifier le type et l’ampleur, avant et après la communication du résultat de test génétique, chez des femmes s’adressant à la consultation d’oncogénétique pour réaliser un test de susceptibilité au cancer du sein ou de l’ovaire en Allemagne, Espagne et France.
Participants et mesures : Parmi les 752 personnes invitées consécutivement à participer à cette étude, 646 (86 %) ― dont 510 (68 %) atteintes d’un cancer du sein―ont répondu à un questionnaire (PAHC (Psychosocial Aspects of Hereditary Cancer)) portant d’une part sur les préoccupations spécifiques à la démarche en oncogénétique et d’autre part sur leurs besoins d’aide psychologique ; questionnaire proposé après la consultation initiale d’oncogénétique initiale (T1) et, pour 460 (61 %) d’entre elles, deux mois après la communication du résultat du test (T2).
Résultats : Soixante-dix-neuf (17,2 %), 19 (4,1 %), 259 (56,3 %), 44 (9,6 %), 59 (12,8 %) femmes ont reçu respectivement les résultats suivants : un variant pathogène sur BRCA1/2 ou sur autre gène à risque élevé ou modéré, un résultat négatif non informatif, un résultat négatif vrai, ou la présence d’un variant dont la signification clinique est incertaine (VUS). Le type de préoccupations et les besoins d’aide psychologique se sont révélés variables selon les pays. Cependant, globalement, les préoccupations les plus fréquentes (> 70 %) étaient relatives à la perte d’un proche familial par cancer, et les moins fréquentes (< 5 %) relatives au soutien des proches. La plupart de ces préoccupations persistent deux mois plus tard, à la suite du résultat de test génétique. En revanche, le besoin d’aide psychologique a globalement diminué sur le plan statistique, excepté, selon le pays, pour les préoccupations familiales/sociales, les difficultés émotionnelles ou les aspects pratiques.
Conclusions : Dans notre étude portant sur des femmes issues de trois pays européens s’adressant à la consultation oncogénétique en vue de réaliser un test de susceptibilité au cancer du sein ou de l’ovaire, la plupart des préoccupations liées à la situation génétique persistent deux mois après la communication du résultat de test, et les besoins d’aide psychologique se manifestent surtout dans le champ des relations et des émotions.
Collapse
|
25
|
Morton K, Kohut K, Turner L, Smith S, Crosbie EJ, Ryan N, Grimmett C, Eccles DM, Foster C. Person-based co-design of a decision aid template for people with a genetic predisposition to cancer. Front Digit Health 2022; 4:1039701. [PMID: 36518561 PMCID: PMC9743799 DOI: 10.3389/fdgth.2022.1039701] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2022] [Accepted: 10/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background People with genetic predispositions to cancer are faced with complex health decisions about managing their risk. Decision aids can support informed, values-based decisions, alongside shared decision-making with a clinician. Whilst diagnoses of genetic predispositions to cancer are increasing, there is no scalable decision aid to support these people. This paper presents an accessible, relevant decision aid template which can be adapted for different predispositions to cancer. Methods The decision aid template was co-developed with 12 patients affected by cancer and informed by empirical and theoretical literature. In addition, consultations were conducted with a further 19 people with Lynch syndrome; a specific genetic predisposition to cancer. Clinical stakeholders were consulted regularly. Coulter's framework for decision aid development guided the process, and these activities were complemented by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, and the latest evidence on communicating risk in decision aids. Programme theory was developed to hypothesise how the decision aid would support decision-making and contextual factors which could influence the process. Guiding principles co-developed with the patient panel described how the decision aid could effectively engage people. Results The in-depth co-design process led to the identification of five core components of an accessible decision aid template for people with a genetic predisposition to cancer: defining the decision; option grid showing implications of each option; optional further details such as icon arrays to show tailored risk and personal narratives; values clarification activity; and a summary to facilitate discussion with a clinician. Specific guidance was produced describing how to develop each component. The guiding principles identified that the decision aid template needed to promote trust, reduce distress, and be comprehensive, personally relevant and accessible in order to engage people. Conclusion Adopting a co-design process helped ensure that the decision aid components were relevant and accessible to the target population. The template could have widespread application through being adapted for different genetic predispositions. The exact content should be co-designed with people from diverse backgrounds with lived experience of the specific predisposition to ensure it is as useful, engaging and relevant as possible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Morton
- Centre for Psychosocial Research in Cancer, Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
- Correspondence: Kate Morton
| | - Kelly Kohut
- Centre for Psychosocial Research in Cancer, Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Lesley Turner
- Patient and Public Contributor, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Sian Smith
- Aston University, College of Health and Life Sciences, School of Optometry, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Emma J. Crosbie
- Department of Gynaecology, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom
- Division of Cancer Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Neil Ryan
- College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - Chloe Grimmett
- Centre for Psychosocial Research in Cancer, Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Diana M. Eccles
- Department of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Claire Foster
- Centre for Psychosocial Research in Cancer, Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | | |
Collapse
|
26
|
Pereira F, Teixeira MR, Dinis Ribeiro M, Brandão C. Multi-Gene Panel Testing in Gastroenterology: Are We Ready for the Results? GE-PORTUGUESE JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY 2021; 28:403-409. [PMID: 34901447 DOI: 10.1159/000513966] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2020] [Accepted: 10/11/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
Genetic testing aims to identify patients at risk for inherited cancer susceptibility. In the last decade, there was a significant increase in the request of broader panels of genes as multi-gene panel testing became widely available. However, physicians may be faced with genetic findings for which there is lack of management evidence, despite some progress in understanding their clinical relevance. In this short review, we discuss the advantages and the drawbacks related to multi-gene panel testing in the setting of a Gastrointestinal Familial Cancer Risk clinic. We also summarize the available recommendations on management of pathogenic variant carriers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Flávio Pereira
- Department of Gastroenterology, Amato Lusitano Hospital, Castelo Branco, Portugal
| | - Manuel R Teixeira
- Department of Genetics, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Porto, Portugal.,Biomedical Sciences Institute (ICBAS), University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - Mário Dinis Ribeiro
- Department of Gastroenterology, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Porto, Portugal
| | - Catarina Brandão
- Department of Gastroenterology, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Porto, Portugal
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
A Review of Breast Cancer Risk Factors in Adolescents and Young Adults. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13215552. [PMID: 34771713 PMCID: PMC8583289 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13215552] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2021] [Revised: 10/29/2021] [Accepted: 11/03/2021] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Cancer diagnosed in patients between the ages of 15 and 39 deserves special consideration. Diagnoses within this cohort of adolescents and young adults include childhood cancers which present at an older age than expected, or an early presentation of cancers that are typically observed in older adults, such as breast cancer. Cancers within this age group are associated with worse disease-free and overall survival rates, and the incidence of these cases are rising. Knowing an individual’s susceptibility to disease can change their clinical management and allow for the risk-testing of relatives. This review discusses the risk factors that contribute to breast cancer in this unique cohort of patients, including inherited genetic risk factors, as well as environmental and lifestyle factors. We also describe risk models that allow clinicians to quantify a patient’s lifetime risk of developing disease. Abstract Cancer in adolescents and young adults (AYAs) deserves special consideration for several reasons. AYA cancers encompass paediatric malignancies that present at an older age than expected, or early-onset of cancers that are typically observed in adults. However, disease diagnosed in the AYA population is distinct to those same cancers which are diagnosed in a paediatric or older adult setting. Worse disease-free and overall survival outcomes are observed in the AYA setting, and the incidence of AYA cancers is increasing. Knowledge of an individual’s underlying cancer predisposition can influence their clinical care and may facilitate early tumour surveillance strategies and cascade testing of at-risk relatives. This information can further influence reproductive decision making. In this review we discuss the risk factors contributing to AYA breast cancer, such as heritable predisposition, environmental, and lifestyle factors. We also describe a number of risk models which incorporate genetic factors that aid clinicians in quantifying an individual’s lifetime risk of disease.
Collapse
|
28
|
Wallander K, Thonberg H, Nilsson D, Tham E. Massive parallel sequencing in individuals with multiple primary tumours reveals the benefit of re-analysis. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2021; 19:46. [PMID: 34711244 PMCID: PMC8555269 DOI: 10.1186/s13053-021-00203-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/20/2021] [Accepted: 10/12/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Multiple primary cancers, defined as three or more primary tumours, are rare, and there are few genetic studies concerning them. There is a need for increased knowledge on the heritability of multiple primary cancers and genotype-phenotype correlations. We have performed whole-genome/exome sequencing (WGS/WES) in ten individuals with three or more primary tumours, with no previous findings on standard clinical genetic investigations. In one individual with a clinical diagnosis of MEN1, a likely pathogenic cryptic splice site variant was detected in the MEN1 gene. The variant (c.654C > A) is synonymous but we showed in a cDNA analysis that it affects splicing and leads to a frameshift, with the theoretical new amino acid sequence p.(Gly219Glufs*13). In one individual with metachronous colorectal cancers, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, we found a likely pathogenic variant in the MLH1 gene (c.27G > A), and two risk factor variants in the genes CHEK2 and HOXB13. The MLH1 variant is synonymous but has previously been shown to be associated to constitutional low-grade hypermethylation of the MLH1 promoter, and segregates with disease in families with colorectal and endometrial cancer. No pathogenic single nucleotide or structural variants were detected in the remaining eight individuals in the study. The pathogenic variants found by WGS/WES were in genes already sequenced by Sanger sequencing and WES in the clinic, without any findings. We conclude that, in individuals with an unequivocal clinical diagnosis of a specific hereditary cancer syndrome, where standard clinical testing failed to detect a causative variant, re-analysis may lead to a diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karin Wallander
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
| | - Håkan Thonberg
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Daniel Nilsson
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Emma Tham
- Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Clinical utility of testing for PALB2 and CHEK2 c.1100delC in breast and ovarian cancer. Genet Med 2021; 23:1969-1976. [PMID: 34113003 PMCID: PMC8486655 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-021-01234-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2021] [Revised: 02/17/2021] [Accepted: 05/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Purpose To investigate the contribution of PALB2 pathogenic gene variants (PGVs, PALB2_PGV) and the CHEK2 c.1100delC (CHEK2_1100delC) PGV to familial breast and ovarian cancer, and PALB2_PGV associated breast cancer pathology. Methods Outcomes of germline PALB2_PGV and CHEK2_1100delC testing were recorded in 3,127 women with histologically confirmed diagnoses of invasive breast cancer, carcinoma in situ, or epithelial nonmucinous ovarian cancer, and 1,567 female controls. Breast cancer pathology was recorded in PALB2_PGV cases from extended families. Results Thirty-five PALB2 and 44 CHEK2_1100delC PGVs were detected in patients (odds ratio [OR] PALB2 breast–ovarian = 5.90 [95% CI: 1.92–18.36], CHEK2 breast–ovarian = 4.46 [95% CI: 1.86–10.46], PALB2 breast = 6.16 [95% CI: 1.98–19.21], CHEK2 breast = 4.89 [95% CI: 2.01–11.34]). Grade 3 ER-positive HER2-negative, grade 3 and triple negative (TN) tumors were enriched in cases with PALB2 PGVs compared with all breast cancers known to our service (respectively: 15/43, 254/1,843, P = 0.0005; 28/37, 562/1,381, P = 0.0001; 12/43, 204/1,639, P < 0.0001). PALB2_PGV likelihood increased with increasing Manchester score (MS) (MS < 15 = 17/1,763, MS 20–39 = 11/520, P = 0.04) but not for CHEK2_1100delC (MS < 15 = 29/1,762, MS 20–39 = 4/520). PALB2 PGVs showed perfect segregation in 20/20 first-degree relatives with breast cancer, compared with 7/13 for CHEK2_1100delC (P = 0.002). Conclusion PALB2 PGVs and CHEK2_1100delC together account for ~2.5% of familial breast/ovarian cancer risk. PALB2 PGVs are associated with grade 3, TN, and grade 3 ER-positive HER2-negative breast tumors.
Collapse
|
30
|
Dhooge M, Saurin JC. Commentary on "Definition and management of colorectal polyposis not associated with APC/MUTYH germline pathogenic variants: AIFEG consensus statement". Dig Liver Dis 2021; 53:418-419. [PMID: 33674216 DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2021.02.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2021] [Accepted: 02/03/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- M Dhooge
- Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology Unit, AP-HP Centre (Cochin Hospital), Paris University, Paris, France.
| | - J-C Saurin
- Gastroenterology Unit, E Herriot Hospital, Hospices Civils de Lyon, and Claude Bernard University, Lyon, France
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Woodward ER, van Veen EM, Evans DG. From BRCA1 to Polygenic Risk Scores: Mutation-Associated Risks in Breast Cancer-Related Genes. Breast Care (Basel) 2021; 16:202-213. [PMID: 34248461 DOI: 10.1159/000515319] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2020] [Accepted: 02/16/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background There has been huge progress over the last 30 years in identifying the familial component of breast cancer. Summary Currently around 20% is explained by the high-risk genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, a further 2% by other high-penetrance genes, and around 5% by the moderate risk genes ATM and CHEK2. In contrast, the more than 300 low-penetrance single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) now account for around 28% and they are predicted to account for most of the remaining 45% yet to be found. Even for high-risk genes which confer a 40-90% risk of breast cancer, these SNP can substantially affect the level of breast cancer risk. Indeed, the strength of family history and hormonal and reproductive factors is very important in assessing risk even for a BRCA carrier. The risks of contralateral breast cancer are also affected by SNP as well as by the presence of high or moderate risk genes. Genetic testing using gene panels is now commonplace. Key-Messages There is a need for a more parsimonious approach to panels only testing those genes with a definite 2-fold increased risk and only testing those genes with challenging management implications, such as CDH1 and TP53, when there is strong clinical indication to do so. Testing of SNP alongside genes is likely to provide a more accurate risk assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma R Woodward
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.,Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Elke M van Veen
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.,Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom.,Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom.,PREVENT Breast Cancer Prevention Centre, Nightingale Centre, Manchester Universities Foundation Trust, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom.,Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, The Christie, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Wedderburn S, Archer S, Tischkowitz M, Hanson H. Update: variable implementation of the 2018 UKCGG/UKGTN guidelines for breast cancer gene panel tests offered by UK genetics services. J Med Genet 2021; 58:579-580. [PMID: 33568439 PMCID: PMC8327314 DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2020-107529] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2020] [Revised: 12/02/2020] [Accepted: 12/05/2020] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Stephanie Archer
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- Academic Department of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Helen Hanson
- South West Thames Regional Genetic Services, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Hughes E, Tshiaba P, Wagner S, Judkins T, Rosenthal E, Roa B, Gallagher S, Meek S, Dalton K, Hedegard W, Adami CA, Grear DF, Domchek SM, Garber J, Lancaster JM, Weitzel JN, Kurian AW, Lanchbury JS, Gutin A, Robson ME. Integrating Clinical and Polygenic Factors to Predict Breast Cancer Risk in Women Undergoing Genetic Testing. JCO Precis Oncol 2021; 5:PO.20.00246. [PMID: 34036224 PMCID: PMC8140787 DOI: 10.1200/po.20.00246] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2020] [Revised: 09/30/2020] [Accepted: 12/22/2020] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Screening and prevention decisions for women at increased risk of developing breast cancer depend on genetic and clinical factors to estimate risk and select appropriate interventions. Integration of polygenic risk into clinical breast cancer risk estimators can improve discrimination. However, correlated genetic effects must be incorporated carefully to avoid overestimation of risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS A novel Fixed-Stratified method was developed that accounts for confounding when adding a new factor to an established risk model. A combined risk score (CRS) of an 86-single-nucleotide polymorphism polygenic risk score and the Tyrer-Cuzick v7.02 clinical risk estimator was generated with attenuation for confounding by family history. Calibration and discriminatory accuracy of the CRS were evaluated in two independent validation cohorts of women of European ancestry (N = 1,615 and N = 518). Discrimination for remaining lifetime risk was examined by age-adjusted logistic regression. Risk stratification with a 20% risk threshold was compared between CRS and Tyrer-Cuzick in an independent clinical cohort (N = 32,576). RESULTS Simulation studies confirmed that the Fixed-Stratified method produced accurate risk estimation across patients with different family history. In both validation studies, CRS and Tyrer-Cuzick were significantly associated with breast cancer. In an analysis with both CRS and Tyrer-Cuzick as predictors of breast cancer, CRS added significant discrimination independent of that captured by Tyrer-Cuzick (P < 10-11 in validation 1; P < 10-7 in validation 2). In an independent cohort, 18% of women shifted breast cancer risk categories from their Tyrer-Cuzick-based risk compared with risk estimates by CRS. CONCLUSION Integrating clinical and polygenic factors into a risk model offers more effective risk stratification and supports a personalized genomic approach to breast cancer screening and prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Danna F. Grear
- The Breast Center of NWA-Medical Associates of Northwest Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR
| | - Susan M. Domchek
- Basser Center for BRCA, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
34
|
Buocikova V, Rios-Mondragon I, Pilalis E, Chatziioannou A, Miklikova S, Mego M, Pajuste K, Rucins M, Yamani NE, Longhin EM, Sobolev A, Freixanet M, Puntes V, Plotniece A, Dusinska M, Cimpan MR, Gabelova A, Smolkova B. Epigenetics in Breast Cancer Therapy-New Strategies and Future Nanomedicine Perspectives. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:E3622. [PMID: 33287297 PMCID: PMC7761669 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12123622] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2020] [Revised: 11/30/2020] [Accepted: 11/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Epigenetic dysregulation has been recognized as a critical factor contributing to the development of resistance against standard chemotherapy and to breast cancer progression via epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. Although the efficacy of the first-generation epigenetic drugs (epi-drugs) in solid tumor management has been disappointing, there is an increasing body of evidence showing that epigenome modulation, in synergy with other therapeutic approaches, could play an important role in cancer treatment, reversing acquired therapy resistance. However, the epigenetic therapy of solid malignancies is not straightforward. The emergence of nanotechnologies applied to medicine has brought new opportunities to advance the targeted delivery of epi-drugs while improving their stability and solubility, and minimizing off-target effects. Furthermore, the omics technologies, as powerful molecular epidemiology screening tools, enable new diagnostic and prognostic epigenetic biomarker identification, allowing for patient stratification and tailored management. In combination with new-generation epi-drugs, nanomedicine can help to overcome low therapeutic efficacy in treatment-resistant tumors. This review provides an overview of ongoing clinical trials focusing on combination therapies employing epi-drugs for breast cancer treatment and summarizes the latest nano-based targeted delivery approaches for epi-drugs. Moreover, it highlights the current limitations and obstacles associated with applying these experimental strategies in the clinics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Verona Buocikova
- Cancer Research Institute, Biomedical Research Center of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dubravska Cesta 9, 845 05 Bratislava, Slovakia; (V.B.); (S.M.); (A.G.)
| | - Ivan Rios-Mondragon
- Department of Clinical Dentistry, University of Bergen, Aarstadveien 19, 5009 Bergen, Norway; (I.R.-M.); (M.R.C.)
| | - Eleftherios Pilalis
- e-NIOS Applications Private Company, Alexandrou Pantou 25, 17671 Kallithea, Greece; (E.P.); (A.C.)
- Center of Systems Biology, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece
| | - Aristotelis Chatziioannou
- e-NIOS Applications Private Company, Alexandrou Pantou 25, 17671 Kallithea, Greece; (E.P.); (A.C.)
- Center of Systems Biology, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece
| | - Svetlana Miklikova
- Cancer Research Institute, Biomedical Research Center of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dubravska Cesta 9, 845 05 Bratislava, Slovakia; (V.B.); (S.M.); (A.G.)
| | - Michal Mego
- 2nd Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University and National Cancer Institute, Klenova 1, 833 10 Bratislava, Slovakia;
| | - Karlis Pajuste
- Latvian Institute of Organic Synthesis, Aizkraukles str. 21, LV-1006 Riga, Latvia; (K.P.); (M.R.); (A.S.); (A.P.)
| | - Martins Rucins
- Latvian Institute of Organic Synthesis, Aizkraukles str. 21, LV-1006 Riga, Latvia; (K.P.); (M.R.); (A.S.); (A.P.)
| | - Naouale El Yamani
- Health Effects Laboratory, NILU-Norwegian Institute for Air Research, 2007 Kjeller, Norway; (N.E.Y.); (E.M.L.); (M.D.)
| | - Eleonora Marta Longhin
- Health Effects Laboratory, NILU-Norwegian Institute for Air Research, 2007 Kjeller, Norway; (N.E.Y.); (E.M.L.); (M.D.)
| | - Arkadij Sobolev
- Latvian Institute of Organic Synthesis, Aizkraukles str. 21, LV-1006 Riga, Latvia; (K.P.); (M.R.); (A.S.); (A.P.)
| | - Muriel Freixanet
- Vall d Hebron, Institut de Recerca (VHIR), 08035 Barcelona, Spain; (M.F.); (V.P.)
| | - Victor Puntes
- Vall d Hebron, Institut de Recerca (VHIR), 08035 Barcelona, Spain; (M.F.); (V.P.)
- Institut Català de Nanosciència i Nanotecnologia (ICN2), Bellaterra, 08193 Barcelona, Spain
- Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), 08010 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Aiva Plotniece
- Latvian Institute of Organic Synthesis, Aizkraukles str. 21, LV-1006 Riga, Latvia; (K.P.); (M.R.); (A.S.); (A.P.)
| | - Maria Dusinska
- Health Effects Laboratory, NILU-Norwegian Institute for Air Research, 2007 Kjeller, Norway; (N.E.Y.); (E.M.L.); (M.D.)
| | - Mihaela Roxana Cimpan
- Department of Clinical Dentistry, University of Bergen, Aarstadveien 19, 5009 Bergen, Norway; (I.R.-M.); (M.R.C.)
| | - Alena Gabelova
- Cancer Research Institute, Biomedical Research Center of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dubravska Cesta 9, 845 05 Bratislava, Slovakia; (V.B.); (S.M.); (A.G.)
| | - Bozena Smolkova
- Cancer Research Institute, Biomedical Research Center of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dubravska Cesta 9, 845 05 Bratislava, Slovakia; (V.B.); (S.M.); (A.G.)
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Waltz M, Prince AER, O’Daniel JM, Foreman AKM, Powell BC, Berg JS. Referencing BRCA in hereditary cancer risk discussions: In search of an anchor in a sea of uncertainty. J Genet Couns 2020; 29:949-959. [PMID: 31967382 PMCID: PMC7374021 DOI: 10.1002/jgc4.1219] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2019] [Revised: 01/03/2020] [Accepted: 01/03/2020] [Indexed: 01/14/2023]
Abstract
As panel testing and exome sequencing are increasingly incorporated into clinical care, clinicians must grapple with how to communicate the risks and treatment decisions surrounding breast cancer genes beyond BRCA1 and BRCA2. In this paper, we examine clinicians' practice of employing BRCA1 and BRCA2 to help contextualize less certain genetic information regarding cancer risk and the possible implications of this practice for patients within the context of an exome sequencing study, NCGENES. We audio-recorded return of results appointments for 14 women who participated in NCGENES, previously had breast cancer, and were suspected of having a hereditary cancer predisposition. These patients were also interviewed four weeks later regarding their understanding of their results. We found that BRCA1 and BRCA2 were held as the gold standard, where clinicians compared what is known about BRCA to the limited understanding of other breast cancer-related genes. BRCA1 and BRCA2 were used as anchors to shape patients' understandings of genetic knowledge, risk, and management, illustrating how the information clinicians provide to patients may work as an external anchor. Yet, presenting BRCA1 and BRCA2 as a means of scientific reassurance can run the risk of patients conflating knowledge about certainty of risk with degree of risk after receiving a result for a moderate penetrance gene. This can be further complicated by misperceptions of the precision of cancer predictability attributed to these or other described 'cancer genes' in public media.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Margaret Waltz
- Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | | | - Julianne M. O’Daniel
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Ann Katherine M. Foreman
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Bradford C. Powell
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Jonathan S. Berg
- Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Pathogenic Germline Mutations of DNA Repair Pathway Components in Early-Onset Sporadic Colorectal Polyp and Cancer Patients. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:cancers12123560. [PMID: 33260537 PMCID: PMC7761471 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12123560] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2020] [Revised: 11/23/2020] [Accepted: 11/26/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by immuno-fecal occult blood tests (iFOBTs) begins at age 50 in average-risk persons. However, the incidence of early-onset CRC has risen; of the cases, at least half are sporadic CRC without a family history. The authors of this study found a high percentage of de novo germline mutation in young sporadic CRC patients, as well as in sporadic colorectal polyp and control groups. All the mutated genes contribute to various DNA-repair pathways, hinting that a loss of genomic integrity play a crucial role in the development of CRC. The early identification of cancer-susceptible individuals by multigene panels in younger individuals who may be missed under current iFOBT screening could contribute to preventing CRC. Abstract Given recent increases in the proportion of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC), researchers are urgently working to establish a multi-gene screening test for both inherited and sporadic cancer-susceptible individuals. However, the incidence and spectrum of germline mutations in young sporadic CRC patients in East Asian countries and, especially, in sporadic polyp carriers and normal individuals are unknown. Peripheral blood samples were collected from 43 colonoscopy-proved normal controls and from 50 polyp patients and 49 CRC patients with no self-reported family history of cancer. All participants were under 50 years old. Next-generation sequencing with a panel of 30 CRC-associated susceptibility genes was employed to detect pathogenic germline mutations. The germline mutation carrier rates were 2.3%, 4.0%, and 12.2% in the normal, polyp, and cancer groups, respectively. A total of seven different mutations in six DNA repair pathway-related genes (MLH1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, BLM, and NTHL1) were detected in nine participants. One frameshift mutation in BRCA2 and one frameshift mutation in the CHEK2 gene were found in a normal control and two colorectal polyp patients, respectively. One young sporadic CRC patient carried two heterozygous mutations, one in MLH1 and one in BRCA1. Three mutations (MLH1 p.Arg265Cys, MLH1 p.Tyr343Ter and CHEK2 p.Ile158TyrfsTer10) were each found in two independent patients and were considered “founder” mutations. This is the first report to demonstrate high percentage of germline mutations in young sporadic colorectal polyp, CRC, and general populations. A multi-gene screening test is warranted for the proactive identification of cancer-predisposed individuals.
Collapse
|
37
|
Tudini E, Davidson AL, Dressel U, Andrews L, Antill Y, Crook A, Field M, Gattas M, Harris R, Kirk J, Pachter N, Salmon L, Susman R, Townshend S, Trainer AH, Tucker KM, Mitchell G, James PA, Ward RL, Mar Fan H, Poplawski NK, Spurdle AB. Implementing gene curation for hereditary cancer susceptibility in Australia: achieving consensus on genes with clinical utility. J Med Genet 2020; 58:853-858. [PMID: 33168572 DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2020-107140] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2020] [Revised: 09/08/2020] [Accepted: 09/12/2020] [Indexed: 11/04/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The strength of evidence supporting the validity of gene-disease relationships is variable. Hereditary cancer has the additional complexity of low or moderate penetrance for some confirmed disease-associated alleles. METHODS To promote national consistency in interpretation of hereditary cancer/tumour gene test results, we requested opinions of representatives from Australian Family Cancer Clinics regarding the clinical utility of 157 genes initially collated for a national research project. Viewpoints were sought by initial survey, face-to-face workshop and follow-up survey. Subsequent review was undertaken by the eviQ Cancer Genetics Reference Committee, a national resource providing evidence-based and consensus-driven cancer treatment protocols. RESULTS Genes were categorised by clinical actionability as: relevant for testing on presentation of common cancer/tumour types (n=45); relevant for testing in the context of specific rare phenotypes (n=74); insufficient clinical utility (n=34) or contentious clinical utility (n=3). Opinions for several genes altered during the study time frame, due to new information. CONCLUSION Through an iterative process, consensus was achieved on genes with clinical utility for hereditary cancer/tumour conditions in the Australian setting. This study highlighted need for regular review of gene-disease lists, a role assumed in Australia for hereditary cancer/tumour predisposition genes by the eviQ Cancer Genetics Reference Committee.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emma Tudini
- Department of Genetics and Computational Biology, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Aimee L Davidson
- Department of Genetics and Computational Biology, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Uwe Dressel
- Australian Genomics Health Alliance, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Lesley Andrews
- Hereditary Cancer Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.,Prince of Wales Medical School, University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Yoland Antill
- Cabrini Family Cancer Clinic, Cabrini Hospital, Malvern, Victoria, Australia
| | - Ashley Crook
- Familial Cancer Service, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Michael Field
- Familial Cancer Service, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Michael Gattas
- Brisbane Genetics, Nicholson St Specialist Centre, Greenslopes, Queensland, Australia
| | - Rebecca Harris
- Familial Cancer Service, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Judy Kirk
- Familial Cancer Service, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia.,Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Centre for Cancer Research, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Westmead, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Nicholas Pachter
- Genetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.,Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Lucinda Salmon
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Austin Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Rachel Susman
- Genetic Health Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Sharron Townshend
- Genetic Services of Western Australia, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Alison H Trainer
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Katherine M Tucker
- Hereditary Cancer Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.,Prince of Wales Medical School, University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Gillian Mitchell
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Paul A James
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Robyn L Ward
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Helen Mar Fan
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,Genetic Health Queensland, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Nicola K Poplawski
- Adult Genetics Unit, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.,School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
| | - Amanda B Spurdle
- Department of Genetics and Computational Biology, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Huang X, Shao D, Wu H, Zhu C, Guo D, Zhou Y, Chen C, Lin Y, Lu T, Zhao B, Wang C, Sun Q. Genomic Profiling Comparison of Germline BRCA and Non- BRCA Carriers Reveals CCNE1 Amplification as a Risk Factor for Non- BRCA Carriers in Patients With Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Front Oncol 2020; 10:583314. [PMID: 33194720 PMCID: PMC7662137 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.583314] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2020] [Accepted: 09/16/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Differences in genomic profiling and immunity-associated parameters between germline BRCA and non-BRCA carriers in TNBC with high tumor burden remain unexplored. This study aimed to compare the differences and explore potential prognostic predictors and therapeutic targets. Methods: The study cohort included 21 consecutive TNBC cases with germline BRCA1/2 mutations and 54 non-BRCA carriers with a tumor size ≥ 2 cm and/or ≥1 affected lymph nodes. Differences in clinicopathological characteristics and genomic profiles were analyzed through next-generation sequencing. Univariate Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression model were applied to survival analysis. Immunohistochemistry was used to confirm the consistency between CCNE1 amplification and cyclin E1 protein overexpression. Results: The cohort included 16 and five patients with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, respectively. Patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations were diagnosed at a significantly younger age and were more likely to have a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Six non-BRCA carriers (11.11%) carried germline mutations in other cancer susceptibility genes, including five mutations in five homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway genes (9.26%) and one mutation in MSH3 (1.85%). Somatic mutations in HRR pathway genes were found in 22.22 and 14.29% of the non-BRCA and BRCA carriers, respectively. PIK3CA missense mutation (p = 0.046) and CCNE1 amplification (p = 0.2) were found only in the non-BRCA carriers. The median tumor mutation burden (TMB) was 4.1 Muts/Mb, whereas none of the cases had high microsatellite instability (MSI). BRCA status did not affect disease-free survival (DFS, p = 0.15) or overall survival (OS, p = 0.52). CCNE1 amplification was an independent risk factor for DFS in non-BRCA carriers with TNBC (HR 13.07, 95% CI 2.47-69.24, p = 0.003). Consistency between CCNE1 amplification and cyclin E1 protein overexpression was confirmed with an AUC of 0.967 for cyclin E1 signal intensity. Conclusions: We found differences in genetic alterations between germline BRCA and non-BRCA carriers with TNBC and a high tumor burden. TMB and MSI may not be suitable predictors of TNBC for immune checkpoint inhibitors. Notably, CCNE1 amplification is a novel potential prognostic marker and therapeutic target for non-BRCA carriers with TNBC. Cyclin E1 may be used instead of CCNE1 to improve clinical applicability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xin Huang
- Department of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Di Shao
- BGI Genomics, BGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China
| | - Huanwen Wu
- Department of Pathology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
| | | | - Dan Guo
- Clinical Biobank, Medical Science Research Center, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yidong Zhou
- Department of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Chang Chen
- Department of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Yan Lin
- Department of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Tao Lu
- Department of Pathology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Bin Zhao
- Department of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Changjun Wang
- Department of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Qiang Sun
- Department of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Vargas-Parra G, Del Valle J, Rofes P, Gausachs M, Stradella A, Moreno-Cabrera JM, Velasco A, Tornero E, Menéndez M, Muñoz X, Iglesias S, López-Doriga A, Azuara D, Campos O, Cuesta R, Darder E, de Cid R, González S, Teulé A, Navarro M, Brunet J, Capellá G, Pineda M, Feliubadaló L, Lázaro C. Comprehensive analysis and ACMG-based classification of CHEK2 variants in hereditary cancer patients. Hum Mutat 2020; 41:2128-2142. [PMID: 32906215 DOI: 10.1002/humu.24110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2020] [Revised: 08/13/2020] [Accepted: 09/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
CHEK2 variants are associated with intermediate breast cancer risk, among other cancers. We aimed to comprehensively describe CHEK2 variants in a Spanish hereditary cancer (HC) cohort and adjust the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG-AMP) guidelines for their classification. First, three CHEK2 frequent variants were screened in a retrospective Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer cohort of 516 patients. After, the whole CHEK2 coding region was analyzed by next-generation sequencing in 1848 prospective patients with HC suspicion. We refined ACMG-AMP criteria and applied different combined rules to classify CHEK2 variants and define risk alleles. We identified 10 CHEK2 null variants, 6 missense variants with discordant interpretation in ClinVar database, and 35 additional variants of unknown significance. Twelve variants were classified as (likely)-pathogenic; two can also be considered "established risk-alleles" and one as "likely risk-allele." The prevalence of (likely)-pathogenic variants in the HC cohort was 0.8% (1.3% in breast cancer patients and 1.0% in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer patients). Here, we provide ACMG adjustment guidelines to classify CHEK2 variants. We hope that this study would be useful for variant classification of other genes with low effect variants.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gardenia Vargas-Parra
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Jesús Del Valle
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Paula Rofes
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Mireia Gausachs
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Agostina Stradella
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Medical Oncology Department, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain
| | - José M Moreno-Cabrera
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Angela Velasco
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Eva Tornero
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Mireia Menéndez
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Xavier Muñoz
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Silvia Iglesias
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Adriana López-Doriga
- Oncology Data Analytics Program (ODAP), Catalan Institute of Oncology, Barcelona, Spain.,Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
| | - Daniel Azuara
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Olga Campos
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Raquel Cuesta
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Esther Darder
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Rafael de Cid
- Programa de Medicina Predictiva i Personalitzada del Càncer-Institut Germans Trias i Pujol (PMPPC-IGTP), Genomes for Life-GCAT Lab Group, Badalona, Spain
| | - Sara González
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Alex Teulé
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Matilde Navarro
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Joan Brunet
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain.,Medical Sciences Department, School of Medicine, University of Girona, Girona, Spain
| | - Gabriel Capellá
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Marta Pineda
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Lídia Feliubadaló
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| | - Conxi Lázaro
- Hereditary Cancer Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology, IDIBELL-IGTP-IDIBGI, Badalona, Spain.,Program in Molecular Mechanisms and Experimental Therapy in Oncology (Oncobell), IDIBELL, Barcelona, Spain.,Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (CIBERONC), Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Evans DG, Woodward ER. New surveillance guidelines for Li-Fraumeni and hereditary TP53 related cancer syndrome: implications for germline TP53 testing in breast cancer. Fam Cancer 2020; 20:1-7. [PMID: 32984917 DOI: 10.1007/s10689-020-00207-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- D Gareth Evans
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
| | - Emma R Woodward
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Akcay IM, Celik E, Agaoglu NB, Alkurt G, Kizilboga Akgun T, Yildiz J, Enc F, Kir G, Canbek S, Kilic A, Zemheri E, Ezberci F, Ozcelik M, Dinler Doganay G, Doganay L. Germline pathogenic variant spectrum in 25 cancer susceptibility genes in Turkish breast and colorectal cancer patients and elderly controls. Int J Cancer 2020; 148:285-295. [PMID: 32658311 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.33199] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2020] [Revised: 06/21/2020] [Accepted: 06/23/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Inherited pathogenic variants account for 5% to 10% of all breast cancer (BC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) cases. Here, we sought to profile the pathogenic variants in 25 cancer susceptibility genes in Turkish population. Germline pathogenic variants were screened in 732 BC patients, 189 CRC patients and 490 cancer-free elderly controls, using next-generation sequencing-based multigene panel testing and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification testing. Pathogenic variants were detected in 17.2% of high-risk BC patients and 26.4% of high-risk CRC patients. More than 95% of these variants were clinically actionable. BRCA1/2 and mismatch repair genes (MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6) accounted for two-thirds of all pathogenic variants detected in high-risk BC and CRC patients, respectively. Pathogenic variants in PALB2, CHEK2, ATM and TP53 were also prevalent in high-risk BC patients (4.5%). BRCA1 exons 17-18 deletion and CHEK2 c.592+3A>T were the most common variants predisposing to BC, and they are likely to be founder variants. Three frequent MUTYH pathogenic variants (c.884C>T, c.1437_1439delGGA and c.1187G>A) were responsible for all MUTYH biallelic cases (4.4% of high-risk CRC patients). The total pathogenic variant frequency was very low in controls (2.4%) and in low-risk BC (3.9%) and CRC (6.1%) patients. Our study depicts the pathogenic variant spectrum and prevalence in Turkish BC and CRC patients, guiding clinicians and health authorities for genetic testing applications and variant classification in Turkish population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Izzet Mehmet Akcay
- Department of Molecular Biology-Genetics & Biotechnology, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.,GLAB (Genomic Laboratory), Health Directorate of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Elifnaz Celik
- Department of Molecular Biology-Genetics & Biotechnology, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.,GLAB (Genomic Laboratory), Health Directorate of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Nihat Bugra Agaoglu
- GLAB (Genomic Laboratory), Health Directorate of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey.,Department of Clinical Genetics, Umraniye Teaching and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Gizem Alkurt
- Department of Molecular Biology-Genetics & Biotechnology, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.,GLAB (Genomic Laboratory), Health Directorate of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Tugba Kizilboga Akgun
- Department of Molecular Biology-Genetics & Biotechnology, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.,GLAB (Genomic Laboratory), Health Directorate of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Jale Yildiz
- Department of Molecular Biology-Genetics & Biotechnology, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.,GLAB (Genomic Laboratory), Health Directorate of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Feruze Enc
- Department of Gastroenterology, Goztepe Teaching and Research Hospital, Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Gozde Kir
- Department of Pathology, Goztepe Teaching and Research Hospital, Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Sezin Canbek
- GLAB (Genomic Laboratory), Health Directorate of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey.,Department of Clinical Genetics, Umraniye Teaching and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ali Kilic
- Department of General Surgery, Umraniye Teaching and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ebru Zemheri
- Department of Pathology, Umraniye Teaching and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Fikret Ezberci
- Department of General Surgery, Umraniye Teaching and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Melike Ozcelik
- Department of Oncology, Kartal Lutfi Kirdar Teaching and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.,Department of Oncology, Umraniye Teaching and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Gizem Dinler Doganay
- Department of Molecular Biology-Genetics & Biotechnology, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.,GLAB (Genomic Laboratory), Health Directorate of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Levent Doganay
- GLAB (Genomic Laboratory), Health Directorate of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey.,Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Umraniye Teaching and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Wood ME, McKinnon W, Garber J. Risk for breast cancer and management of unaffected individuals with non-BRCA hereditary breast cancer. Breast J 2020; 26:1528-1534. [PMID: 32741080 DOI: 10.1111/tbj.13969] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2019] [Accepted: 12/12/2019] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
About 5%-10% of breast cancer is hereditary with BRCA1 and BRCA2 being the most common genes associated with hereditary breast cancer (HBC). Several additional genes have recently been associated with HBC. These genes can be classified as highly or moderately penetrant genes with lifetime risk >30% or 17%-30%, respectively. Highly penetrant genes associated with HBC include TP53, PTEN, CDH1, STK11, and PALB2. While, moderately penetrant genes include CHEK2, ATM, BARD1, BRIP1, NBN, NF1, RAD51D, and MSH6. Breast cancer risk and recommendations for screening and risk-reduction vary by gene. In general, screening breast MRI is recommended for women at >20% lifetime risk, which includes women with mutations in highly penetrant genes and the majority (but not all) moderately penetrant genes. Consideration of chemoprevention is recommended for women with mutations in high and moderately penetrant genes. Risk-reducing mastectomy does reduce the risk of breast cancer to the greatest extent and can be considered for women with highly penetrant genes. However, this procedure is associated with significant morbidities that should be considered, especially given the benefit of using screening breast MRI for high-risk women. BSO is only recommended for women with mutations in genes associate with increased risk for ovarian cancer and not as a breast cancer risk-reducing strategy. As more women undergo testing, additional genes may be identified and risk estimates for current genes and management recommendations may be modified.
Collapse
|
43
|
Suszynska M, Kozlowski P. Summary of BARD1 Mutations and Precise Estimation of Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risks Associated with the Mutations. Genes (Basel) 2020; 11:genes11070798. [PMID: 32679805 PMCID: PMC7397132 DOI: 10.3390/genes11070798] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2020] [Revised: 07/13/2020] [Accepted: 07/14/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Over the last two decades, numerous BARD1 mutations/pathogenic variants (PVs) have been found in patients with breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC). However, their role in BC and OC susceptibility remains controversial, and strong evidence-based guidelines for carriers are not yet available. Herein, we present a comprehensive catalog of BARD1 PVs identified in large cumulative cohorts of ~48,700 BC and ~20,800 OC cases (retrieved from 123 studies examining the whole coding sequence of BARD1). Using these resources, we compared the frequency of BARD1 PVs in the cases and ~134,100 controls from the gnomAD database and estimated the effect of the BARD1 PVs on BC and OC risks. The analysis revealed that BARD1 is a BC moderate-risk gene (odds ratio (OR) = 2.90, 95% CIs:2.25–3.75, p < 0.0001) but not an OC risk gene (OR = 1.36, 95% CIs:0.87–2.11, p = 0.1733). In addition, the BARD1 mutational spectrum outlined in this study allowed us to determine recurrent PVs and evaluate the variant-specific risk for the most frequent PVs. In conclusion, these precise estimates improve the understanding of the role of BARD1 PVs in BC and OC predisposition and support the need for BARD1 diagnostic testing in BC patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Piotr Kozlowski
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +48-618-528-503 (ext. 261); Fax: +48-618-520-532
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Gallagher S, Hughes E, Wagner S, Tshiaba P, Rosenthal E, Roa BB, Kurian AW, Domchek SM, Garber J, Lancaster J, Weitzel JN, Gutin A, Lanchbury JS, Robson M. Association of a Polygenic Risk Score With Breast Cancer Among Women Carriers of High- and Moderate-Risk Breast Cancer Genes. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3:e208501. [PMID: 32609350 PMCID: PMC7330720 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8501] [Citation(s) in RCA: 65] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2019] [Accepted: 03/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Importance To date, few studies have examined the extent to which polygenic single-nucleotide variation (SNV) (formerly single-nucleotide polymorphism) scores modify risk for carriers of pathogenic variants (PVs) in breast cancer susceptibility genes. In previous reports, polygenic risk modification was reduced for BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers compared with noncarriers, but limited information is available for carriers of CHEK2, ATM, or PALB2 PVs. Objective To examine an 86-SNV polygenic risk score (PRS) for BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2 PV carriers. Design, Setting, and Participants A retrospective case-control study using data on 150 962 women tested with a multigene hereditary cancer panel between July 19, 2016, and January 11, 2019, was conducted in a commercial testing laboratory. Participants included women of European ancestry between the ages of 18 and 84 years. Main Outcomes and Measures Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association of the 86-SNV score with invasive breast cancer after adjusting for age, ancestry, and personal and/or family cancer history. Effect sizes, expressed as standardized odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs, were assessed for carriers of PVs in each gene as well as for noncarriers. Results The median age at hereditary cancer testing of the population was 48 years (range, 18-84 years); there were 141 160 noncarriers in addition to carriers of BRCA1 (n = 2249), BRCA2 (n = 2638), CHEK2 (n = 2564), ATM (n = 1445), and PALB2 (n = 906) PVs included in the analysis. The 86-SNV score was associated with breast cancer risk in each of the carrier populations (P < 1 × 10-4). Stratification was more pronounced for noncarriers (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.45-1.49) and CHEK2 PV carriers (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.36-1.64) than for carriers of BRCA1 (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.32) or BRCA2 (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.12-1.34) PVs. Odds ratios for ATM (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.21-1.55) and PALB2 (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.16-1.55) PV carrier populations were intermediate between those for BRCA1/2 and CHEK2 noncarriers. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, the 86-SNV score was associated with modified risk for carriers of BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2, ATM, and PALB2 PVs. This finding supports previous reports of reduced PRS stratification for BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers compared with noncarriers. Modification of risk in CHEK2 carriers associated with the 86-SNV score appeared to be similar to that observed in women without a PV. Larger studies are needed to provide more refined estimates of polygenic modification of risk for women with PVs in other moderate-penetrance genes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Susan M. Domchek
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Judy Garber
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Johnathan Lancaster
- Myriad Genetics Inc, Salt Lake City, Utah
- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Tarrytown, New York
| | | | | | | | - Mark Robson
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Hanson H, Brady AF, Crawford G, Eeles RA, Gibson S, Jorgensen M, Izatt L, Sohaib A, Tischkowitz M, Evans DG. UKCGG Consensus Group guidelines for the management of patients with constitutional TP53 pathogenic variants. J Med Genet 2020; 58:jmedgenet-2020-106876. [PMID: 32571901 PMCID: PMC7848057 DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2020-106876] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2020] [Revised: 03/11/2020] [Accepted: 03/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Constitutional pathogenic variants in TP53 are associated with Li-Fraumeni syndrome or the more recently described heritable TP53-related cancer syndrome and are associated with increased lifetime risks of a wide spectrum of cancers. Due to the broad tumour spectrum, surveillance for this patient group has been limited. To date, the only recommendation in the UK has been for annual breast MRI in women; however, more recently, a more intensive surveillance protocol including whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) has been recommended by International Expert Groups. To address the gap in surveillance for this patient group in the UK, the UK Cancer Genetics Group facilitated a 1-day consensus meeting to discuss a protocol for the UK. Using a preworkshop survey followed by structured discussion on the day, we achieved consensus for a UK surveillance protocol for TP53 carriers to be adopted by UK Clinical Genetics services. The key recommendations are for annual WB-MRI and dedicated brain MRI from birth, annual breast MRI from 20 years in women and three-four monthly abdominal ultrasound in children along with review in a dedicated clinic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen Hanson
- St George's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, South West Thames Regional Genetic Services, London, UK
| | - Angela F Brady
- North West Thames Regional Genetics Service, Kennedy-Galton Centre, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, Harrow, UK
| | - Gillian Crawford
- Clinical Genetics, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
| | - Rosalind A Eeles
- Oncogenetics Team, The Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, UK
- Clinical Oncology and Oncogenetics, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, London, UK
| | - Sarah Gibson
- Peninsula Clinical Genetics, Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK
| | - Mette Jorgensen
- Paediatric Oncology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Louise Izatt
- Clinical Genetics, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Aslam Sohaib
- Radiology, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS FoundationTrust, London, UK
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- Academic Department of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Genetic Medicine, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS FoundationTrust, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
DeSouza B, Georgiou D. Advances in Hereditary Colorectal Cancer: Opportunities and Challenges for Clinical Translation. CURRENT GENETIC MEDICINE REPORTS 2020. [DOI: 10.1007/s40142-020-00183-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
|
47
|
Cerretelli G, Ager A, Arends MJ, Frayling IM. Molecular pathology of Lynch syndrome. J Pathol 2020; 250:518-531. [PMID: 32141610 DOI: 10.1002/path.5422] [Citation(s) in RCA: 85] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2020] [Revised: 03/02/2020] [Accepted: 03/03/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
Lynch syndrome (LS) is characterised by predisposition to colorectal, endometrial, and other cancers and is caused by inherited pathogenic variants affecting the DNA mismatch repair (MMR) genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2. It is probably the most common predisposition to cancer, having an estimated prevalence of between 1/100 and 1/180. Resources such as the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Cancer's MMR gene variant database, the Prospective Lynch Syndrome Database (PLSD), and the Colon Cancer Family Register (CCFR), as well as pathological and immunological studies, are enabling advances in the understanding of LS. These include defined criteria by which to interpret gene variants, the function of MMR in the normal control of apoptosis, definition of the risks of the various cancers, and the mechanisms and pathways by which the colorectal and endometrial tumours develop, including the critical role of the immune system. Colorectal cancers in LS can develop along three pathways, including flat intramucosal lesions, which depend on the underlying affected MMR gene. This gives insights into the limitations of colonoscopic surveillance and highlights the need for other forms of anti-cancer prophylaxis in LS. Finally, it shows that the processes of autoimmunisation and immunoediting fundamentally constrain the development of tumours in LS and explain the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade therapy in MMR-deficient tumours. © 2020 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guia Cerretelli
- Division of Pathology, Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Ann Ager
- Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine and Systems Immunity Research Institute, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Mark J Arends
- Division of Pathology, Cancer Research UK Edinburgh Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Ian M Frayling
- Inherited Tumour Syndromes Research Group, Institute of Cancer & Genetics, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Yang X, Leslie G, Doroszuk A, Schneider S, Allen J, Decker B, Dunning AM, Redman J, Scarth J, Plaskocinska I, Luccarini C, Shah M, Pooley K, Dorling L, Lee A, Adank MA, Adlard J, Aittomäki K, Andrulis IL, Ang P, Barwell J, Bernstein JL, Bobolis K, Borg Å, Blomqvist C, Claes KB, Concannon P, Cuggia A, Culver JO, Damiola F, de Pauw A, Diez O, Dolinsky JS, Domchek SM, Engel C, Evans DG, Fostira F, Garber J, Golmard L, Goode EL, Gruber SB, Hahnen E, Hake C, Heikkinen T, Hurley JE, Janavicius R, Kleibl Z, Kleiblova P, Konstantopoulou I, Kvist A, Laduca H, Lee AS, Lesueur F, Maher ER, Mannermaa A, Manoukian S, McFarland R, McKinnon W, Meindl A, Metcalfe K, Mohd Taib NA, Moilanen J, Nathanson KL, Neuhausen S, Ng PS, Nguyen-Dumont T, Nielsen SM, Obermair F, Offit K, Olopade OI, Ottini L, Penkert J, Pylkäs K, Radice P, Ramus SJ, Rudaitis V, Side L, Silva-Smith R, Silvestri V, Skytte AB, Slavin T, Soukupova J, Tondini C, Trainer AH, Unzeitig G, Usha L, van Overeem Hansen T, Whitworth J, Wood M, Yip CH, Yoon SY, Yussuf A, Zogopoulos G, Goldgar D, Hopper JL, Chenevix-Trench G, Pharoah P, George SH, Balmaña J, Houdayer C, James P, El-Haffaf Z, Ehrencrona H, Janatova M, Peterlongo P, Nevanlinna H, Schmutzler R, Teo SH, Robson M, Pal T, Couch F, Weitzel JN, Elliott A, Southey M, Winqvist R, Easton DF, Foulkes WD, Antoniou AC, Tischkowitz M. Cancer Risks Associated With Germline PALB2 Pathogenic Variants: An International Study of 524 Families. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:674-685. [PMID: 31841383 PMCID: PMC7049229 DOI: 10.1200/jco.19.01907] [Citation(s) in RCA: 238] [Impact Index Per Article: 59.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/19/2019] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To estimate age-specific relative and absolute cancer risks of breast cancer and to estimate risks of ovarian, pancreatic, male breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers associated with germline PALB2 pathogenic variants (PVs) because these risks have not been extensively characterized. METHODS We analyzed data from 524 families with PALB2 PVs from 21 countries. Complex segregation analysis was used to estimate relative risks (RRs; relative to country-specific population incidences) and absolute risks of cancers. The models allowed for residual familial aggregation of breast and ovarian cancer and were adjusted for the family-specific ascertainment schemes. RESULTS We found associations between PALB2 PVs and risk of female breast cancer (RR, 7.18; 95% CI, 5.82 to 8.85; P = 6.5 × 10-76), ovarian cancer (RR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.40 to 6.04; P = 4.1 × 10-3), pancreatic cancer (RR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.24 to 4.50; P = 8.7 × 10-3), and male breast cancer (RR, 7.34; 95% CI, 1.28 to 42.18; P = 2.6 × 10-2). There was no evidence for increased risks of prostate or colorectal cancer. The breast cancer RRs declined with age (P for trend = 2.0 × 10-3). After adjusting for family ascertainment, breast cancer risk estimates on the basis of multiple case families were similar to the estimates from families ascertained through population-based studies (P for difference = .41). On the basis of the combined data, the estimated risks to age 80 years were 53% (95% CI, 44% to 63%) for female breast cancer, 5% (95% CI, 2% to 10%) for ovarian cancer, 2%-3% (95% CI females, 1% to 4%; 95% CI males, 2% to 5%) for pancreatic cancer, and 1% (95% CI, 0.2% to 5%) for male breast cancer. CONCLUSION These results confirm PALB2 as a major breast cancer susceptibility gene and establish substantial associations between germline PALB2 PVs and ovarian, pancreatic, and male breast cancers. These findings will facilitate incorporation of PALB2 into risk prediction models and optimize the clinical cancer risk management of PALB2 PV carriers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xin Yang
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Goska Leslie
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Alicja Doroszuk
- Department of Medical Genetics, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, and Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Sandra Schneider
- Department of Medical Genetics, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, and Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Jamie Allen
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Brennan Decker
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
- Cancer Genetics Branch, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
- Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Alison M. Dunning
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology,University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - James Redman
- Department of Medical Genetics, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, and Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - James Scarth
- Department of Medical Genetics, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, and Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Inga Plaskocinska
- Department of Medical Genetics, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, and Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Craig Luccarini
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology,University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Mitul Shah
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology,University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Karen Pooley
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Leila Dorling
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew Lee
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Muriel A. Adank
- Family Cancer Clinic, The Netherlands Cancer Institute–Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Julian Adlard
- Yorkshire Regional Genetics Service, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Kristiina Aittomäki
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Irene L. Andrulis
- Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute of Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Peter Ang
- Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Division of Cellular and Molecular Research, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore
| | - Julian Barwell
- Leicestershire Clinical Genetics Service, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
| | - Jonine L. Bernstein
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Kristie Bobolis
- Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network, City of Hope, Duarte, CA
| | - Åke Borg
- Division of Oncology and Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Carl Blomqvist
- Department of Oncology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | | | - Patrick Concannon
- University of Florida Genetics Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
| | - Adeline Cuggia
- The Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- The Goodman Cancer Research Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Julie O. Culver
- Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA
| | | | | | - Orland Diez
- Oncogenetics Group, Clinical and Molecular Genetics Area, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), University Hospital, Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Susan M. Domchek
- Department ofMedicine, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
- Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing (PROMPT), United States and Europe
| | - Christoph Engel
- Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester; Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary’s Hospital–Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; and Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Florentia Fostira
- Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, INRASTES, National Centre for Scientific Research “Demokritos,” Athens, Greece
| | - Judy Garber
- Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing (PROMPT), United States and Europe
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
| | - Lisa Golmard
- Service de Génétique, Institut Curie, Paris, France
| | - Ellen L. Goode
- Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | | | - Eric Hahnen
- Center for Molecular Medicine Cologne (CMMC), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
- Center for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Christopher Hake
- Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network, City of Hope, Duarte, CA
| | - Tuomas Heikkinen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Judith E. Hurley
- Division of Medical Oncology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL
| | - Ramunas Janavicius
- Hematology, Oncology and Transfusion Medicine Center, Department of Molecular and Regenerative Medicine, Vilnius University Hospital Santariskiu Clinics, Vilnius, Lithuania
- State Research Institute Innovative Medicine Center, Vilnius, Lithuania
| | - Zdenek Kleibl
- Institute of Biochemistry and Experimental Oncology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Petra Kleiblova
- Institute of Biochemistry and Experimental Oncology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
- Institute of Biology and Medical Genetics, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Irene Konstantopoulou
- Molecular Diagnostics Laboratory, INRASTES, National Centre for Scientific Research “Demokritos,” Athens, Greece
| | - Anders Kvist
- Division of Oncology and Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | | | - Ann S.G. Lee
- Leicestershire Clinical Genetics Service, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, United Kingdom
- Department of Physiology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
- SingHealth Duke-NUS Oncology Academic Clinical Programme (ONCO ACP), Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
| | - Fabienne Lesueur
- INSERM U900, Institut Curie, PSL University, Mines ParisTech, Paris, France
| | - Eamonn R. Maher
- Department of Medical Genetics, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, and Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Arto Mannermaa
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Siranoush Manoukian
- Unit of Medical Genetics, Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Rachel McFarland
- Ambry Genetics, Aliso Viejo, CA
- Department of Epidemiology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA
| | - Wendy McKinnon
- Familial Cancer Program, The University of Vermont Cancer Center, Burlington, VT
| | - Alfons Meindl
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Kelly Metcalfe
- Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nur Aishah Mohd Taib
- University Malaya Cancer Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Jukka Moilanen
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Oulu University Hospital, Medical Research Center Oulu and PEDEGO Research Unit, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
| | - Katherine L. Nathanson
- Department ofMedicine, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Susan Neuhausen
- Department of Population Sciences, Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, Duarte, CA
| | - Pei Sze Ng
- University Malaya Cancer Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Tu Nguyen-Dumont
- Department of Clinical Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Sarah M. Nielsen
- Center for Clinical Cancer Genetics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
| | - Florian Obermair
- Institute of Medical Genetics, Kepler University Hospital Linz and Laboratory for Molecular Biology and Tumor Cytogenetics, Ordensklinikum Linz, Linz, Austria
| | - Kenneth Offit
- Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing (PROMPT), United States and Europe
- Clinical Genetics Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | - Laura Ottini
- Department of Molecular Medicine, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy
| | - Judith Penkert
- Department of Human Genetics, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | - Katri Pylkäs
- Laboratory of Cancer Genetics and Tumor Biology, Cancer and Translational Medicine Research Unit, Biocenter Oulu, University of Oulu, and Northern Finland Laboratory Centre, Oulu, Finland
| | - Paolo Radice
- Unit of Molecular Basis of Genetic Risk and Genetic Testing, Department of Research, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Susan J. Ramus
- School of Women’s and Children’s Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Vilius Rudaitis
- Hematology, Oncology and Transfusion Medicine Center, Department of Molecular and Regenerative Medicine, Vilnius University Hospital Santariskiu Clinics, Vilnius, Lithuania
| | - Lucy Side
- Wessex Clinical Genetics Service, Princess Anne Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Rachel Silva-Smith
- Department of Genetics, University of MiamiMiller School of Medicine, Miami, FL
| | | | - Anne-Bine Skytte
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Thomas Slavin
- Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network, City of Hope, Duarte, CA
- Department of Medical Oncology, Division of Clinical Cancer Genomics, City of Hope, Duarte, CA
| | - Jana Soukupova
- Institute of Biochemistry and Experimental Oncology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Carlo Tondini
- Unit of Medical Oncology, Department of Oncology and Hematology,Papa Giovanni XXIII Hospital, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Alison H. Trainer
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Gary Unzeitig
- Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network, City of Hope, Duarte, CA
| | - Lydia Usha
- Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network, City of Hope, Duarte, CA
| | - Thomas van Overeem Hansen
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Center for Genomic Medicine, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - James Whitworth
- Department of Medical Genetics, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, and Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Marie Wood
- Familial Cancer Program, The University of Vermont Cancer Center, Burlington, VT
| | - Cheng Har Yip
- Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Sook-Yee Yoon
- Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya Selangor, Malaysia
| | | | - George Zogopoulos
- The Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- The Goodman Cancer Research Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - David Goldgar
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - John L. Hopper
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Georgia Chenevix-Trench
- Department of Genetics and Computational Biology, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Paul Pharoah
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Sophia H.L. George
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL
| | - Judith Balmaña
- Oncogenetics Group, Clinical and Molecular Genetics Area, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology (VHIO), University Hospital, Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain
- Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing (PROMPT), United States and Europe
| | - Claude Houdayer
- Service de Génétique, Institut Curie, Paris, France
- Genetics Department, F76000 and Normandy University, UNIROUEN, INSERM U1245, Normandy Centre for Genomic and Personalized Medicine, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France
| | - Paul James
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Center, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Zaki El-Haffaf
- Department of Genetics, Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Hans Ehrencrona
- Department of Clinical Genetics and Pathology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Office for Medical Services, Lund, Sweden
- Division of Clinical Genetics, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Marketa Janatova
- Institute of Biochemistry and Experimental Oncology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
| | - Paolo Peterlongo
- Genome Diagnostics Program, IFOM–The FIRC Institute for Molecular Oncology, Milan, Italy
| | - Heli Nevanlinna
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Rita Schmutzler
- Center for Molecular Medicine Cologne (CMMC), University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
- Center for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Soo-Hwang Teo
- University Malaya Cancer Research Institute, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
- Cancer Research Malaysia, Subang Jaya Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Mark Robson
- Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing (PROMPT), United States and Europe
- Breast Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Tuya Pal
- Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Division of Genetic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Fergus Couch
- Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing (PROMPT), United States and Europe
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Jeffrey N. Weitzel
- Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network, City of Hope, Duarte, CA
- Department of Medical Oncology, Division of Clinical Cancer Genomics, City of Hope, Duarte, CA
| | | | - Melissa Southey
- Department of Clinical Pathology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
| | - Robert Winqvist
- Laboratory of Cancer Genetics and Tumor Biology, Cancer and Translational Medicine Research Unit, Biocenter Oulu, University of Oulu, and Northern Finland Laboratory Centre, Oulu, Finland
| | - Douglas F. Easton
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - William D. Foulkes
- The Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
- Departments of Human Genetics, Oncology, and Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
| | - Antonis C. Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- Department of Medical Genetics, NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, and Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Monahan KJ, Bradshaw N, Dolwani S, Desouza B, Dunlop MG, East JE, Ilyas M, Kaur A, Lalloo F, Latchford A, Rutter MD, Tomlinson I, Thomas HJW, Hill J. Guidelines for the management of hereditary colorectal cancer from the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI)/United Kingdom Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG). Gut 2020; 69:411-444. [PMID: 31780574 PMCID: PMC7034349 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319915] [Citation(s) in RCA: 240] [Impact Index Per Article: 60.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2019] [Revised: 10/25/2019] [Accepted: 11/05/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Heritable factors account for approximately 35% of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, and almost 30% of the population in the UK have a family history of CRC. The quantification of an individual's lifetime risk of gastrointestinal cancer may incorporate clinical and molecular data, and depends on accurate phenotypic assessment and genetic diagnosis. In turn this may facilitate targeted risk-reducing interventions, including endoscopic surveillance, preventative surgery and chemoprophylaxis, which provide opportunities for cancer prevention. This guideline is an update from the 2010 British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (BSG/ACPGBI) guidelines for colorectal screening and surveillance in moderate and high-risk groups; however, this guideline is concerned specifically with people who have increased lifetime risk of CRC due to hereditary factors, including those with Lynch syndrome, polyposis or a family history of CRC. On this occasion we invited the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), a subgroup within the British Society of Genetic Medicine (BSGM), as a partner to BSG and ACPGBI in the multidisciplinary guideline development process. We also invited external review through the Delphi process by members of the public as well as the steering committees of the European Hereditary Tumour Group (EHTG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). A systematic review of 10 189 publications was undertaken to develop 67 evidence and expert opinion-based recommendations for the management of hereditary CRC risk. Ten research recommendations are also prioritised to inform clinical management of people at hereditary CRC risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin J Monahan
- Family Cancer Clinic, St Mark's Hospital, London, UK
- Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - Nicola Bradshaw
- Clinical Genetics, West of Scotland Genetics Services, Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Sunil Dolwani
- Gastroenterology, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK
| | - Bianca Desouza
- Clinical Genetics, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - James E East
- Translational Gastroenterology Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
- Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Mohammad Ilyas
- Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, Nottingham University, Nottingham, UK
| | - Asha Kaur
- Head of Policy and Campaigns, Bowel Cancer UK, London, UK
| | - Fiona Lalloo
- Genetic Medicine, Central Manchester University Hospitals Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | | | - Matthew D Rutter
- Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, UK
- Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Ian Tomlinson
- Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, Birmingham, UK
- Cancer Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Huw J W Thomas
- Family Cancer Clinic, St Mark's Hospital, London, UK
- Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - James Hill
- Genetic Medicine, Central Manchester University Hospitals Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Chen B, Zhang G, Li X, Ren C, Wang Y, Li K, Mok H, Cao L, Wen L, Jia M, Li C, Guo L, Wei G, Lin J, Li Y, Zhang Y, Han-Zhang H, Liu J, Lizaso A, Liao N. Comparison of BRCA versus non-BRCA germline mutations and associated somatic mutation profiles in patients with unselected breast cancer. Aging (Albany NY) 2020; 12:3140-3155. [PMID: 32091409 PMCID: PMC7066887 DOI: 10.18632/aging.102783] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2019] [Accepted: 01/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
The data on the phenotypes associated with some rare germline mutations in Chinese breast cancer patients are limited. The difference in somatic mutation profiles in breast cancer patients with germline BRCA and non-BRCA mutations remains unexplored. We interrogated the germline and somatic mutational profile of 524 Chinese breast cancer patients with various stages unselected for predisposing factors using a panel consisting of 520 cancer-related genes including 62 cancer susceptibility genes. We divided the patients into three groups according to germline mutations: Germline-BRCA1/2, Germline-others (non-BRCA) and Others (non-carriers). A total of 58 patients (11.1%) carried 76 likely pathogenic or pathogenic (LP/P) germline variants in 15 cancer predisposition genes. Germline BRCA1/2 mutations were detected from 29 (5.53%) patients; with 11 (2.10%) BRCA1 carriers and 18 (3.44%) BRCA2 carriers. In addition, LP/P germline mutations were detected in other genes including MUTYH (n=4), PALB2 (n=4), ATM (n=3), BRIP1 (n=3), CDH1 (n=3), RAD51C (n=3), CHEK2 (n=2), FANCA (n=2), PMS2 (n=2), TP53 (n=2), FANCI (n=1), FANCL (n=1) and PTEN (n=1). At least one variant of uncertain significance (VUS) was identified in 490 (93.5%) patients. Young age (P=0.011), premenopausal status (P=0.013), and breast/ovarian cancer family history (P=0.001) were correlated with germline mutations. Germline-BRCA1/2 group was detected with more missense (P=0.02) and less copy-number amplification (P=0.04) than Germline-others group. Meanwhile, Germline-others group and Others group are very similar (P>0.05). The mutation rates of AKT1, CCND1, FGFR1, and PIK3CA were different among the three groups. By investigating all breast and ovarian cancer-related genes listed in the US genetic guidelines, we identified 15 cancer susceptibility genes frequently mutated in the germline of our population and must be included in cancer predisposition screening. Our study contributed a better understanding of the tumor characteristics of patients with LP/P germline mutations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bo Chen
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Guochun Zhang
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Xuerui Li
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Chongyang Ren
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Yulei Wang
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
| | - Kai Li
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Hsiaopei Mok
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Li Cao
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Lingzhu Wen
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Minghan Jia
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Cheukfai Li
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Liping Guo
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Guangnan Wei
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jiali Lin
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yingzi Li
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- The Second School of Clinical Medicine, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yuchen Zhang
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
- School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
| | | | - Jing Liu
- Burning Rock Biotech, Guangzhou, China
| | | | - Ning Liao
- Department of Breast Cancer, Cancer Center, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| |
Collapse
|