BACKGROUND: Next generation sequencing (NGS) has been a handy tool in clinical practice, mainly due to its efficiency and cost-effectiveness. It has been widely used in genetic diagnosis of several inherited diseases, and, in clinical oncology, it may enhance the discovery of new susceptibility genes and enable individualized care of cancer patients. In this context, we explored a pan-cancer panel in the investigation of germline variants in Brazilian patients presenting clinical criteria for hereditary cancer syndromes or familial history. METHODS: Seventy-one individuals diagnosed or with familial history of hereditary cancer syndromes were submitted to custom pan-cancer panel including 16 high and moderate penetrance genes previously associated with hereditary cancer syndromes (APC, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CDKN2A, CHEK2, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, PTEN, RB1, RET, TP53, VHL, XPA and XPC). All pathogenic variants were validated by Sanger sequencing. RESULTS: We identified a total of eight pathogenic variants among 12 of 71 individuals (16.9%). Among the mutation-positive subjects, 50% were diagnosed with breast cancer and had mutations in BRCA1, CDH1 and MUTYH. Notably, 33.3% were individuals diagnosed with polyposis or who had family cases and harbored pathogenic mutations in APC and MUTYH. The remaining individuals (16.7%) were gastric cancer patients with pathogenic variants in CDH1 and MSH2. Overall, 54 (76.05%) individuals presented at least one variant uncertain significance (VUS), totalizing 81 VUS. Of these, seven were predicted to have disease-causing potential. CONCLUSION: Overall, analysis of all these genes in NGS-panel allowed the identification not only of pathogenic variants related to hereditary cancer syndromes but also of some VUS that need further clinical and molecular investigations. The results obtained in this study had a significant impact on patients and their relatives since it allowed genetic counselling and personalized management decisions.
BACKGROUND: Next generation sequencing (NGS) has been a handy tool in clinical practice, mainly due to its efficiency and cost-effectiveness. It has been widely used in genetic diagnosis of several inherited diseases, and, in clinical oncology, it may enhance the discovery of new susceptibility genes and enable individualized care of cancerpatients. In this context, we explored a pan-cancer panel in the investigation of germline variants in Brazilian patients presenting clinical criteria for hereditary cancer syndromes or familial history. METHODS: Seventy-one individuals diagnosed or with familial history of hereditary cancer syndromes were submitted to custom pan-cancer panel including 16 high and moderate penetrance genes previously associated with hereditary cancer syndromes (APC, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CDKN2A, CHEK2, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, PTEN, RB1, RET, TP53, VHL, XPA and XPC). All pathogenic variants were validated by Sanger sequencing. RESULTS: We identified a total of eight pathogenic variants among 12 of 71 individuals (16.9%). Among the mutation-positive subjects, 50% were diagnosed with breast cancer and had mutations in BRCA1, CDH1 and MUTYH. Notably, 33.3% were individuals diagnosed with polyposis or who had family cases and harbored pathogenic mutations in APC and MUTYH. The remaining individuals (16.7%) were gastric cancerpatients with pathogenic variants in CDH1 and MSH2. Overall, 54 (76.05%) individuals presented at least one variant uncertain significance (VUS), totalizing 81 VUS. Of these, seven were predicted to have disease-causing potential. CONCLUSION: Overall, analysis of all these genes in NGS-panel allowed the identification not only of pathogenic variants related to hereditary cancer syndromes but also of some VUS that need further clinical and molecular investigations. The results obtained in this study had a significant impact on patients and their relatives since it allowed genetic counselling and personalized management decisions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hereditary cancer; Next generation sequencing; Pan-cancer panel; Pathogenic variant
Authors: Karen H Lu; Marie E Wood; Molly Daniels; Cathy Burke; James Ford; Noah D Kauff; Wendy Kohlmann; Noralane M Lindor; Therese M Mulvey; Linda Robinson; Wendy S Rubinstein; Elena M Stoffel; Carrie Snyder; Sapna Syngal; Janette K Merrill; Dana Swartzberg Wollins; Kevin S Hughes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Thereasa A Rich; Mei Liu; Carol J Etzel; Sarah A Bannon; Maureen E Mork; Kaylene Ready; Devki S Saraiya; Elizabeth G Grubbs; Nancy D Perrier; Karen H Lu; Banu K Arun; Terri L Woodard; Leslie R Schover; Jennifer K Litton Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Felipe Cavalcanti Carneiro da Silva; Mev Dominguez Valentin; Fábio de Oliveira Ferreira; Dirce Maria Carraro; Benedito Mauro Rossi Journal: Sao Paulo Med J Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 1.044