William T Couldwell1, Lisa A Cannon-Albright1. 1. Department of Neurosurgery and Division of Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Meningiomas are common intracranial tumors in adults, yet the genetics and cause of sporadic meningiomas are not well understood. Few familial clusters have been reported. The aim of this study was to investigate the familiality of meningiomas within the Utah Population Database. METHODS: Meningioma cases reported in the Utah Cancer Registry were identified. Relative risk of their relatives was calculated. All possible cases were assessed with the Genealogical Index of Familiality (GIF), which measures average pairwise relatedness of all possible pairs using the Malecot coefficient of kinship. Clusters of cases descending from a common ancestor were identified. RESULTS: Eight hundred fifty-eight meningioma cases were reported. The relative risk of a first- or second-degree relative was 3.13 (95% CI: 1.67, 5.36) or 2.28 (1.30, 3.70), respectively. The GIF statistic demonstrated a clear excess of relationships for genetic distance <4 (closer than first cousins). We identified 920 pedigrees, including 2-21 meningioma cases. One hundred eighty-nine of these pedigrees, including 2-15 cases, had a significant excess (P < 0.05) of meningioma cases over what was expected. CONCLUSIONS: This Utah population-based analysis of meningiomas shows clear evidence of familial clustering and supports both a familial and a germline variant basis for meningioma. These clusters may allow identification of genes likely to contribute to tumorigenesis in high-risk pedigrees. These relative risk data provide the basis for further investigations of genetic contributions to meningioma. These data may contribute to developing a basis for determining screening criteria of higher-risk pedigrees for the presence of meningiomas.
BACKGROUND: Meningiomas are common intracranial tumors in adults, yet the genetics and cause of sporadic meningiomas are not well understood. Few familial clusters have been reported. The aim of this study was to investigate the familiality of meningiomas within the Utah Population Database. METHODS: Meningioma cases reported in the Utah Cancer Registry were identified. Relative risk of their relatives was calculated. All possible cases were assessed with the Genealogical Index of Familiality (GIF), which measures average pairwise relatedness of all possible pairs using the Malecot coefficient of kinship. Clusters of cases descending from a common ancestor were identified. RESULTS: Eight hundred fifty-eight meningioma cases were reported. The relative risk of a first- or second-degree relative was 3.13 (95% CI: 1.67, 5.36) or 2.28 (1.30, 3.70), respectively. The GIF statistic demonstrated a clear excess of relationships for genetic distance <4 (closer than first cousins). We identified 920 pedigrees, including 2-21 meningioma cases. One hundred eighty-nine of these pedigrees, including 2-15 cases, had a significant excess (P < 0.05) of meningioma cases over what was expected. CONCLUSIONS: This Utah population-based analysis of meningiomas shows clear evidence of familial clustering and supports both a familial and a germline variant basis for meningioma. These clusters may allow identification of genes likely to contribute to tumorigenesis in high-risk pedigrees. These relative risk data provide the basis for further investigations of genetic contributions to meningioma. These data may contribute to developing a basis for determining screening criteria of higher-risk pedigrees for the presence of meningiomas.
Authors: Elizabeth B Claus; Lisa Calvocoressi; Melissa L Bondy; Joellen M Schildkraut; Joseph L Wiemels; Margaret Wrensch Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2011-07-22 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Kari Hemminki; Steinar Tretli; Jan Sundquist; Tom B Johannesen; Charlotta Granström Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2009-04-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Laufey T Amundadottir; Sverrir Thorvaldsson; Daniel F Gudbjartsson; Patrick Sulem; Kristleifur Kristjansson; Sigurdur Arnason; Jeffrey R Gulcher; Johannes Bjornsson; Augustine Kong; Unnur Thorsteinsdottir; Kari Stefansson Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2004-12-28 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Miriam J Smith; James O'Sullivan; Sanjeev S Bhaskar; Kristen D Hadfield; Gemma Poke; John Caird; Saba Sharif; Diana Eccles; David Fitzpatrick; Daniel Rawluk; Daniel du Plessis; William G Newman; D Gareth Evans Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2013-02-03 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: E H Gerkes; J M Fock; W F A den Dunnen; M J van Belzen; C A van der Lans; E W Hoving; I E Fakkert; M J Smith; D G Evans; M J W Olderode-Berends Journal: Neurogenetics Date: 2016-01-23 Impact factor: 2.660
Authors: Qianxi Feng; Eric Nickels; Ivo S Muskens; Adam J de Smith; W James Gauderman; Amy C Yee; Charite Ricker; Thomas Mack; Andrew D Leavitt; Lucy A Godley; Joseph L Wiemels Journal: Elife Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 8.140