A Hamilton1, E Smith2, J Hamon3, E Tomiak1,2, M Bassal1,3, S L Sawyer1,2. 1. Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute. 2. Department of Genetics, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, and. 3. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We set out to identify and offer genetic testing to the 5%-10% of pediatric cancer patients who have been estimated to carry germline mutations in inherited cancer predisposition syndromes. Clinical genetic testing has become widely available, and thus in busy oncology clinics, tools are needed to identify patients who could benefit from a referral to genetics. METHODS: We studied the clinical utility of administering a family history form in the pediatric oncology long-term follow-up clinic to identify patients who might have an inherited cancer predisposition syndrome. Genetic testing involved primarily Sanger sequencing in clia (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments)-certified laboratories. RESULTS: Of 57 patients who completed forms, 19 (33.3%) met criteria for referral to genetics. A significant family history of cancer was present for 4 patients, and 12 patients underwent genetic testing. Of 18 genetic tests ordered, none identified a pathogenic mutation, likely because of a small sample size and a candidate-gene approach to testing. Three families were also identified for further assessment based on a family history of breast cancer, with two of families having members eligible for BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic testing in pediatric oncology patients is important to guide the management of patients who have an inherited cancer predisposition syndrome and to identify other family members at risk when mutations are identified. When no mutations are identified, that information is often reassuring to families who are worried about siblings. However, in the absence of an identified genetic cause in a patient, some uncertainty remains.
OBJECTIVE: We set out to identify and offer genetic testing to the 5%-10% of pediatric cancer patients who have been estimated to carry germline mutations in inherited cancer predisposition syndromes. Clinical genetic testing has become widely available, and thus in busy oncology clinics, tools are needed to identify patients who could benefit from a referral to genetics. METHODS: We studied the clinical utility of administering a family history form in the pediatric oncology long-term follow-up clinic to identify patients who might have an inherited cancer predisposition syndrome. Genetic testing involved primarily Sanger sequencing in clia (Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments)-certified laboratories. RESULTS: Of 57 patients who completed forms, 19 (33.3%) met criteria for referral to genetics. A significant family history of cancer was present for 4 patients, and 12 patients underwent genetic testing. Of 18 genetic tests ordered, none identified a pathogenic mutation, likely because of a small sample size and a candidate-gene approach to testing. Three families were also identified for further assessment based on a family history of breast cancer, with two of families having members eligible for BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic testing in pediatric oncology patients is important to guide the management of patients who have an inherited cancer predisposition syndrome and to identify other family members at risk when mutations are identified. When no mutations are identified, that information is often reassuring to families who are worried about siblings. However, in the absence of an identified genetic cause in a patient, some uncertainty remains.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer genetics; family histories; genomics; inherited cancer predisposition syndromes; pediatric genetic testing; pediatric oncology
Authors: Sarah L Sawyer; Lei Tian; Marketta Kähkönen; Jeremy Schwartzentruber; Martin Kircher; Jacek Majewski; David A Dyment; A Micheil Innes; Kym M Boycott; Lisa A Moreau; Jukka S Moilanen; Roger A Greenberg Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Marjolijn C J Jongmans; Jan L C M Loeffen; Esmé Waanders; Peter M Hoogerbrugge; Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg; Roland P Kuiper; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge Journal: Eur J Med Genet Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 2.708
Authors: Jinghui Zhang; Michael F Walsh; Gang Wu; Kim E Nichols; Michael N Edmonson; Tanja A Gruber; John Easton; Dale Hedges; Xiaotu Ma; Xin Zhou; Donald A Yergeau; Mark R Wilkinson; Bhavin Vadodaria; Xiang Chen; Rose B McGee; Stacy Hines-Dowell; Regina Nuccio; Emily Quinn; Sheila A Shurtleff; Michael Rusch; Aman Patel; Jared B Becksfort; Shuoguo Wang; Meaghann S Weaver; Li Ding; Elaine R Mardis; Richard K Wilson; Amar Gajjar; David W Ellison; Alberto S Pappo; Ching-Hon Pui; James R Downing Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Najim Ameziane; Patrick May; Anneke Haitjema; Henri J van de Vrugt; Sari E van Rossum-Fikkert; Dejan Ristic; Gareth J Williams; Jesper Balk; Davy Rockx; Hong Li; Martin A Rooimans; Anneke B Oostra; Eunike Velleuer; Ralf Dietrich; Onno B Bleijerveld; A F Maarten Altelaar; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Hans Joenje; Gustavo Glusman; Jared Roach; Leroy Hood; David Galas; Claire Wyman; Rudi Balling; Johan den Dunnen; Johan P de Winter; Roland Kanaar; Richard Gelinas; Josephine C Dorsman Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 14.919