Dilys M Parry1, Mary L McMaster1,2, Norbert J Liebsch3, Nicholas J Patronas4, Martha M Quezado5, Deborah Zametkin6, Xiaohong R Yang1, Alisa M Goldstein1. 1. 1Division of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda. 2. 2Commissioned Corps of the United States Public Health Service, Bethesda, Maryland. 3. 3Department of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. 4Radiology and Imaging Sciences, NIH Clinical Center, Bethesda. 5. 5Laboratory of Pathology, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda; and. 6. 6Westat, Inc., Rockville, Maryland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To gain insight into the role of germline genetics in the development of chordoma, the authors evaluated data from 2 sets of patients with familial chordoma, those with and without a germline duplication of the T gene (T-dup+ vs T-dup-), which was previously identified as a susceptibility mechanism in some families. The authors then compared the patients with familial tumors to patients with sporadic chordoma in the US general population reported to the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program through 2015. METHODS: Evaluation of family members included review of personal and family medical history, physical and neurological examination, and pre- and postcontrast MRI of the skull base and spine. Sixteen patients from 6 white families with chordoma had a chordoma diagnosis at family referral. Screening MR images of 35 relatives revealed clival lesions in 6, 4 of which were excised and confirmed to be chordoma. Thus, data were available for 20 patients with histologically confirmed familial chordoma. There were 1759 patients with histologically confirmed chordoma in SEER whose race was known. RESULTS: The median age at chordoma diagnosis differed across the groups: it was lowest in T-dup+ familial patients (26.8 years, range 5.3-68.4 years); intermediate in T-dup- patients (46.2 years, range 11.8-60.1 years); and highest in SEER patients (57 years, range 0-98 years). There was a marked preponderance of skull base tumors in patients with familial chordoma (93% in T-dup+ and 83% in T-dup-) versus 38% in the SEER program (37% in white, 53% in black, and 48.5% in Asian/Pacific Islander/American Indian/Alaska Native patients). Furthermore, 29% of white and 16%-17% of nonwhite SEER patients had mobile-spine chordoma, versus no patients in the familial group. Several T-dup+ familial chordoma patients had putative second/multiple primary chordomas. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of young age at diagnosis, skull base presentation, or multiple primary chordomas should encourage careful review of family history for patients diagnosed with chordoma as well as screening of at-risk family members by MRI for early detection of chordoma. Furthermore, given genetic predisposition in some patients with familial chordoma, identification of a specific mutation in a family will permit surveillance to be limited to mutation carriers-and consideration should be given for imaging the entire neuraxis in any chordoma patient presenting at an early age or with a blood relative with chordoma. Finally, future studies should explore racial differences in age at diagnosis and presenting site in chordoma.
OBJECTIVE: To gain insight into the role of germline genetics in the development of chordoma, the authors evaluated data from 2 sets of patients with familial chordoma, those with and without a germline duplication of the T gene (T-dup+ vs T-dup-), which was previously identified as a susceptibility mechanism in some families. The authors then compared the patients with familial tumors to patients with sporadic chordoma in the US general population reported to the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program through 2015. METHODS: Evaluation of family members included review of personal and family medical history, physical and neurological examination, and pre- and postcontrast MRI of the skull base and spine. Sixteen patients from 6 white families with chordoma had a chordoma diagnosis at family referral. Screening MR images of 35 relatives revealed clival lesions in 6, 4 of which were excised and confirmed to be chordoma. Thus, data were available for 20 patients with histologically confirmed familial chordoma. There were 1759 patients with histologically confirmed chordoma in SEER whose race was known. RESULTS: The median age at chordoma diagnosis differed across the groups: it was lowest in T-dup+ familial patients (26.8 years, range 5.3-68.4 years); intermediate in T-dup- patients (46.2 years, range 11.8-60.1 years); and highest in SEER patients (57 years, range 0-98 years). There was a marked preponderance of skull base tumors in patients with familial chordoma (93% in T-dup+ and 83% in T-dup-) versus 38% in the SEER program (37% in white, 53% in black, and 48.5% in Asian/Pacific Islander/American Indian/Alaska Native patients). Furthermore, 29% of white and 16%-17% of nonwhite SEER patients had mobile-spine chordoma, versus no patients in the familial group. Several T-dup+ familial chordomapatients had putative second/multiple primary chordomas. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of young age at diagnosis, skull base presentation, or multiple primary chordomas should encourage careful review of family history for patients diagnosed with chordoma as well as screening of at-risk family members by MRI for early detection of chordoma. Furthermore, given genetic predisposition in some patients with familial chordoma, identification of a specific mutation in a family will permit surveillance to be limited to mutation carriers-and consideration should be given for imaging the entire neuraxis in any chordomapatient presenting at an early age or with a blood relative with chordoma. Finally, future studies should explore racial differences in age at diagnosis and presenting site in chordoma.
Entities:
Keywords:
T (brachyury) ; chordoma; familial; oncology ; skull base
Authors: Brian P Walcott; Brian V Nahed; Ahmed Mohyeldin; Jean-Valery Coumans; Kristopher T Kahle; Manuel J Ferreira Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Phuong L Mai; Ana F Best; June A Peters; Rosamma M DeCastro; Payal P Khincha; Jennifer T Loud; Renée C Bremer; Philip S Rosenberg; Sharon A Savage Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-08-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Yagiz Yolcu; Waseem Wahood; Mohammed Ali Alvi; Panagiotis Kerezoudis; Scott H Okuno; Robert L Foote; Mohamad Bydon Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2019-04-14 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: M Miozzo; L Dalprà; P Riva; M Volontà; F Macciardi; S Pericotti; M G Tibiletti; M Cerati; K Rohde; L Larizza; A M Fuhrman Conti Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2000-07-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Xiaohong R Yang; David Ng; David A Alcorta; Norbert J Liebsch; Eamonn Sheridan; Sufeng Li; Alisa M Goldstein; Dilys M Parry; Michael J Kelley Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2009-10-04 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Bing Xia; Kajal Biswas; Tzeh K Foo; Thiago T Gomes; Maximilian Riedel-Topper; Eileen Southon; Zhihua Kang; Yanying Huo; Susan Reid; Stacey Stauffer; Weiyin Zhou; Bin Zhu; Hela Koka; Sally Yepes; Seth A Brodie; Kristine Jones; Aurelie Vogt; Bin Zhu; Brian Carter; Neal D Freedman; Belynda Hicks; Meredith Yeager; Stephen J Chanock; Fergus Couch; Dilys M Parry; Alvaro N Monteiro; Alisa M Goldstein; Marcelo A Carvalho; Shyam K Sharan; Xiaohong R Yang Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 4.700