Search

Pheochromocytomas (PHEO) and paragangliomas (PGL) can occur sporadic or within genetic predisposition syndromes. Despite shared embryology, there are important differences between PHEO and PGL. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical presentation and disease characteristics of PHEO/PGL. A retrospective analysis of consecutively registered patients diagnosed with or treated for PHEO/PGL in a tertiary care centre was performed. Patients were compared according to anatomic location (PHEO vs PGL) and genetic status (sporadic vs hereditary). In total, we identified 38 women and 29 men, aged 50 ± 19 years. Of these, 42 (63%) had PHEO, and 25 (37%) had PGL. Patients with PHEO presented more frequently with sporadic than hereditary disease (45 years vs 27 (77%) vs 8 (23%)) than patients with PGL (9 (36%) vs 16 (64%), respectively) and were older at diagnosis (55 ± 17 vs 40 ± 18 years, P = 0.001), respectively). About half of the cases in both PHEO and PGL were diagnosed due to disease-related symptoms. In patients with PHEO, tumour diameter was larger (P = 0.001), metanephrine levels higher (P = 0.02), and there was more frequently a history of cardiovascular events than in patients with PGL. In conclusion, we found that patients with PGL more frequently have a hereditary predisposition than those with PHEO, contributing to the fact that diagnosis is generally made earlier in PGL. Although diagnosis in both PHEO and PGL was mostly due to related symptoms, patients with PHEO more often presented with cardiovascular comorbidities than those with PGL which might relate to a higher number of functionally active tumours in the former.

Genotype; Cancer phenotypes; Genetic tumour Genotip; Fenotips del càncer; Tumor genètic Genotipo; Fenotipos del cáncer; Tumor genético Background Truncating pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants of CDH1 cause hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC), a tumour risk syndrome that predisposes carrier individuals to diffuse gastric and lobular breast cancer. Rare CDH1 missense variants are often classified as variants of unknown significance. We conducted a genotype–phenotype analysis in families carrying rare CDH1 variants, comparing cancer spectrum in carriers of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPV; analysed jointly) or missense variants of unknown significance, assessing the frequency of families with lobular breast cancer among PV/LPV carrier families, and testing the performance of lobular breast cancer-expanded criteria for CDH1 testing. Methods This genotype-first study used retrospective diagnostic and clinical data from 854 carriers of 398 rare CDH1 variants and 1021 relatives, irrespective of HDGC clinical criteria, from 29 institutions in ten member-countries of the European Reference Network on Tumour Risk Syndromes (ERN GENTURIS). Data were collected from Oct 1, 2018, to Sept 20, 2022. Variants were classified by molecular type and clinical actionability with the American College of Medical Genetics and Association for Molecular Pathology CDH1 guidelines (version 2). Families were categorised by whether they fulfilled the 2015 and 2020 HDGC clinical criteria. Genotype–phenotype associations were analysed by Student's t test, Kruskal-Wallis, χ2, and multivariable logistic regression models. Performance of HDGC clinical criteria sets were assessed with an equivalence test and Youden index, and the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were compared by Z test. Findings From 1971 phenotypes (contributed by 854 probands and 1021 relatives aged 1–93 years), 460 had gastric and breast cancer histology available. CDH1 truncating PV/LPVs occurred in 176 (21%) of 854 families and missense variants of unknown significance in 169 (20%) families. Multivariable logistic regression comparing phenotypes occurring in families carrying PV/LPVs or missense variants of unknown significance showed that lobular breast cancer had the greatest positive association with the presence of PV/LPVs (odds ratio 12·39 [95% CI 2·66–57·74], p=0·0014), followed by diffuse gastric cancer (8·00 [2·18–29·39], p=0·0017) and gastric cancer (7·81 [2·03–29·96], p=0·0027). 136 (77%) of 176 families carrying PV/LPVs fulfilled the 2015 HDGC criteria. Of the remaining 40 (23%) families, who did not fulfil the 2015 criteria, 11 fulfilled the 2020 HDGC criteria, and 18 had lobular breast cancer only or lobular breast cancer and gastric cancer, but did not meet the 2020 criteria. No specific CDH1 variant was found to predispose individuals specifically to lobular breast cancer, although 12 (7%) of 176 PV/LPV carrier families had lobular breast cancer only. Addition of three new lobular breast cancer-centred criteria improved testing sensitivity while retaining high specificity. The probability of finding CDH1 PV/LPVs in patients fulfilling the lobular breast cancer-expanded criteria, compared with the 2020 criteria, increased significantly (AUC 0·92 vs 0·88; Z score 3·54; p=0·0004). Interpretation CDH1 PV/LPVs were positively associated with HDGC-related phenotypes (lobular breast cancer, diffuse gastric cancer, and gastric cancer), and no evidence for a positive association with these phenotypes was found for CDH1 missense variants of unknown significance. CDH1 PV/LPVs occurred often in families with lobular breast cancer who did not fulfil the 2020 HDGC criteria, supporting the expansion of lobular breast cancer-centred criteria. Funding European Reference Network on Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes, European Regional Development Fund, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portugal), Cancer Research UK, and European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. European Reference Network on Genetic Tumour Risk Syndromes, European Regional Development Fund, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portugal), Cancer Research UK, and European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.

Funder: Funding details are provided in the Supplementary Material, Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) have the potential to improve risk stratification. Joint estimation of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) effects in models could improve predictive performance over standard approaches of PRS construction. Here, we implemented computationally-efficient, penalized, logistic regression models (lasso, elastic net, stepwise) to individual level genotype data and a Bayesian framework with continuous shrinkage, ���select and shrink for summary statistics��� (S4), to summary level data for epithelial non-mucinous ovarian cancer risk prediction. We developed the models in a dataset consisting of 23,564 non-mucinous EOC cases and 40,138 controls participating in the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC) and validated the best models in three populations of different ancestries: prospective data from 198,101 women of European ancestry; 7,669 women of East Asian ancestry; 1,072 women of African ancestry, and in 18,915 BRCA1 and 12,337 BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry. In the external validation data, the model with the strongest association for non-mucinous EOC risk derived from the OCAC model development data was the S4 model (27,240 SNPs) with odds ratios (OR) of 1.38(95%CI:1.28���1.48,AUC:0.588) per unit standard deviation, in women of European ancestry; 1.14(95%CI:1.08���1.19,AUC:0.538) in women of East Asian ancestry; 1.38(95%CI:1.21-1.58,AUC:0.593) in women of African ancestry; hazard ratios of 1.37(95%CI:1.30���1.44,AUC:0.592) in BRCA1 pathogenic variant carriers and 1.51(95%CI:1.36-1.67,AUC:0.624) in BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Incorporation of the S4 PRS in risk prediction models for ovarian cancer may have clinical utility in ovarian cancer prevention programs.

BACKGROUND: Pathogenic PTEN germline variants cause PTEN Hamartoma Tumor Syndrome (PHTS), a rare disease with a variable genotype and phenotype. Knowledge about these spectra and genotype-phenotype associations could help diagnostics and potentially lead to personalized care. Therefore, we assessed the PHTS genotype and phenotype spectrum in a large cohort study. METHODS: Information was collected of 510 index patients with pathogenic or likely pathogenic (LP/P) PTEN variants (n = 467) or variants of uncertain significance. Genotype-phenotype associations were assessed using logistic regression analyses adjusted for sex and age. RESULTS: At time of genetic testing, the majority of children (n = 229) had macrocephaly (81%) or developmental delay (DD, 61%), and about half of the adults (n = 238) had cancer (51%), macrocephaly (61%), or cutaneous pathology (49%). Across PTEN, 268 LP/P variants were identified, with exon 5 as hotspot. Missense variants (n = 161) were mainly located in the phosphatase domain (PD, 90%) and truncating variants (n = 306) across all domains. A trend towards 2 times more often truncating variants was observed in adults (OR = 2.3, 95%CI = 1.5-3.4) and patients with cutaneous pathology (OR = 1.6, 95%CI = 1.1-2.5) or benign thyroid pathology (OR = 2.0, 95%CI = 1.1-3.5), with trends up to 2-4 times more variants in PD. Whereas patients with DD (OR = 0.5, 95%CI = 0.3-0.9) or macrocephaly (OR = 0.6, 95%CI = 0.4-0.9) had about 2 times less often truncating variants compared to missense variants. In DD patients these missense variants were often located in domain C2. CONCLUSION: The PHTS phenotypic diversity may partly be explained by the PTEN variant coding effect and the combination of coding effect and domain. PHTS patients with early-onset disease often had missense variants, and those with later-onset disease often truncating variants. ispartof: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS vol:65 issue:12 ispartof: location:Netherlands status: published

Breast and prostate cancer risks; Pathogenic variant Riscos de càncer de mama i pròstata; Variants patogèniques Riesgos de cáncer de mama y próstata; Variantes patogénicas Background Recent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. Methods 483 BRCA1 and 1318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were 3 versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen receptor (ER)–negative (PRSER-), or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk. Results PRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07 to 1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer odds ratios were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions. Conclusions Population-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and informing clinical management. The CIMBA data management and data analysis were supported by Cancer Research UK grants C12292/A20861 and PPRPGM-Nov20\100002. The research leading to these results has received funding from the Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC) under IG 2018 - ID. 21389 and the Italian League for the Fight Against Cancer (LILT) under IG 2019 projects, P.I. Ottini Laura and Italian Ministry of Education, Universities and Research-Dipartimenti di Eccellenza-L. 232/2016. CIMBA: GCT is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Research Fellow. iCOGS and OncoArray data: the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692, C8197/A16565), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112 - the GAME-ON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer (CRN-87521), and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade (PSR-SIIRI-701), Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The Personalized Risk Stratification for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer (PERSPECTIVE) and PERSPECTIVE I&I projects were supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Ministry of Economy and Innovation through Genome Québec, and The Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation and the Ontario Research Fund. Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR): UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Baltic Familial Breast Ovarian Cancer Consortium (BFBOCC): Lithuania (BFBOCC-LT): Research Council of Lithuania grant SEN-18/2015. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC): Breast Cancer Research Foundation. BRCA-gene mutations and breast cancer in South African women (BMBSA): Cancer Association of South Africa (PI Elizabeth J. van Rensburg). Spanish National Cancer Centre (CNIO): Spanish Ministry of Health PI16/00440 supported by Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) funds, the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO) SAF2014-57680-R and the Spanish Research Network on Rare diseases (CIBERER). City of Hope - Clinical Cancer Genomics Community Research Network (COH-CCGCRN): Research reported in this publication was supported by the NCI of the NIH under grant No. R25CA112486, and RC4CA153828 (PI: J. Weitzel) from the NCI and the Office of the Director, NIH. CONsorzio Studi ITaliani sui Tumori Ereditari Alla Mammella (CONSIT TEAM): Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC; IG2014 No.15547) to P. Radice. Funds from Italian citizens who allocated the 5x1000 share of their tax payment in support of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, according to Italian laws (INT-Institutional strategic projects ‘5x1000’) to S. Manoukian. Associazione CAOS Varese to M.G. Tibiletti. AIRC (IG2015 No.16732) to P. Peterlongo. National Centre for Scientific Research Demokritos (DEMOKRITOS): European Union (European Social Fund—ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program of the General Secretariat for Research & Technology: SYN11_10_19 NBCA. Investing in knowledge society through the European Social Fund. German Cancer Research Center (DFKZ): German Cancer Research Center. Epidemiological Study of Familial Breast Cancer (EMBRACE): Cancer Research UK Grants C1287/A10118 and C1287/A11990. D. Gareth Evans and Fiona Lalloo are supported by an National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) grant to the Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester. The Investigators at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust are supported by an NIHR grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Ros Eeles and Elizabeth Bancroft are supported by Cancer Research UK Grant C5047/A8385. Ros Eeles is also supported by NIHR support to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC): The University of Kansas Cancer Center (P30 CA168524) and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. AKG was in part funded by the NCI (R01 CA214545 and R01 CA140323), The Kansas Institute for Precision Medicine (P20 GM130423), and the Kansas Bioscience Authority Eminent Scholar Program. A.K.G. is the Chancellors Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences Professor. Fundación Pública Galega de Medicina Xenómica (FPGMX): FISPI05/2275 and Mutua Madrileña Foundation (FMMA). German Familial Breast Group (GC-HBOC): German Cancer Aid (grant No. 110837, Rita K. Schmutzler) and the European Regional Development Fund and Free State of Saxony, Germany (LIFE—Leipzig Research Centre for Civilization Diseases, project No. 713-241202, No. 713-241202, No. 14505/2470, and No. 14575/2470). Genetic Modifiers of cancer risk in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (GEMO): Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer; the Association “Le cancer du sein, parlons-en!” Award, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program and the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa grants 2013-1-BCB-01-ICH-1 and SHS-E-SP 18-015). Georgetown University (GEORGETOWN): the Non-Therapeutic Subject Registry Shared Resource at Georgetown University (NIH/NCI grant P30-CA051008), the Fisher Center for Hereditary Cancer and Clinical Genomics Research, and Swing Fore the Cure. Ghent University Hospital (G-FAST): Bruce Poppe is a senior clinical investigator of FWO. Mattias Van Heetvelde obtained funding from IWT. Hospital Clinico San Carlos (HCSC): Spanish Ministry of Health PI15/00059, PI16/01292, and CB-161200301 CIBERONC from ISCIII (Spain), partially supported by European Regional Development FEDER funds. Helsinki Breast Cancer Study (HEBCS): Helsinki University Hospital Research Fund, the Finnish Cancer Society and the Sigrid Juselius Foundation. Hereditary Breast and Ovarian cancer study the Netherlands (HEBON): the Dutch Cancer Society grants NKI1998-1854, NKI2004-3088, NKI2007-3756, the Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research grant NWO 91109024, the Pink Ribbon grants 110005 and 2014-187.WO76, the Biobanking and Biomolecular Resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI) grant NWO 184.021.007/CP46 and the Transcan grant JTC 2012 Cancer 12-054. HEBON thanks the registration teams of Dutch Cancer Registry (IKNL; S. Siesling, J. Verloop) and the Dutch Pathology database (PALGA; L. Overbeek) for part of the data collection. Study of Genetic Mutations in Breast and Ovarian Cancer patients in Hong Kong and Asia (HRBCP): Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Dr Ellen Li Charitable Foundation, The Kerry Group Kuok Foundation, National Institute of Health1R 03CA130065, and North California Cancer Center. Molecular Genetic Studies of Breast- and Ovarian Cancer in Hungary (HUNBOCS): Hungarian Research Grants KTIA-OTKA CK-80745 and NKFI_OTKA K-112228. Institut Català d’Oncologia (ICO): The authors would like to particularly acknowledge the support of the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (organismo adscrito al Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad) and “FEDER, una manera de hacer Europa” (PI10/01422, PI13/00285, PIE13/00022, PI15/00854, PI16/00563 and CIBERONC) and the Institut Català de la Salut and Autonomous Government of Catalonia (2009SGR290, 2014SGR338 and PERIS Project MedPerCan). International Hereditary Cancer Centre (IHCC): PBZ_KBN_122/P05/2004. Iceland Landspitali – University Hospital (ILUH): Icelandic Association “Walking for Breast Cancer Research” and by the Landspitali University Hospital Research Fund. INterdisciplinary HEalth Research Internal Team BReast CAncer susceptibility (INHERIT): Canadian Institutes of Health Research for the “CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer” program—grant No. CRN-87521 and the Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade—grant No. PSR-SIIRI-701. Istituto Oncologico Veneto (IOVHBOCS): Ministero della Salute and “5x1000” Istituto Oncologico Veneto grant. Portuguese Oncology Institute-Porto Breast Cancer Study (IPOBCS): Liga Portuguesa Contra o Cancro. Kathleen Cuningham Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer (kConFab): The National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. Korean Hereditary Breast Cancer Study (KOHBRA): the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), and the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI16C1127; 1020350; 1420190). Mayo Clinic (MAYO): NIH grants CA116167, CA192393 and CA176785, an NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA116201), and a grant from the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. McGill University (MCGILL): Jewish General Hospital Weekend to End Breast Cancer, Quebec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade. Marc Tischkowitz is supported by the funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program (2007Y2013)/European Research Council (Grant No. 310018). Modifier Study of Quantitative Effects on Disease (MODSQUAD): MH CZ—DRO (MMCI, 00209805), MEYS—NPS I—LO1413 to LF, and by Charles University in Prague project UNCE204024 (MZ). Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC): the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Initiative, the Andrew Sabin Research Fund and a Cancer Center Support Grant/Core Grant (P30 CA008748). Women’s College Research Institute Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Study (NAROD): 1R01 CA149429-01. National Cancer Institute (NCI): the Intramural Research Program of the US NCI, NIH, and by support services contracts NO2-CP-11019-50, N02-CP-21013-63 and N02-CP-65504 with Westat, Inc, Rockville, MD. National Israeli Cancer Control Center (NICCC): Clalit Health Services in Israel, the Israel Cancer Association and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF), NY. N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology (NNPIO): the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grants 17-54-12007, 17-00-00171 and 18-515-12007). NRG Oncology: U10 CA180868, NRG SDMC grant U10 CA180822, NRG Administrative Office and the NRG Tissue Bank (CA 27469), the NRG Statistical and Data Center (CA 37517) and the Intramural Research Program, NCI. The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (OSUCCG): Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. Università di Pisa (PBCS): AIRC [IG 2013 N.14477] and Tuscany Institute for Tumors (ITT) grant 2014-2015-2016. South East Asian Breast Cancer Association Study (SEABASS): Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Ministry of Higher Education (UM.C/HlR/MOHE/06) and Cancer Research Initiatives Foundation. Sheba Medical Centre (SMC): the Israeli Cancer Association. Swedish Breast Cancer Study (SWE-BRCA): the Swedish Cancer Society. University of Chicago (UCHICAGO): NCI Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer (CA125183), R01 CA142996, 1U01CA161032 and by the Ralph and Marion Falk Medical Research Trust, the Entertainment Industry Fund National Women’s Cancer Research Alliance and the Breast Cancer research Foundation. OIO is an American Cancer Society (ACS) Clinical Research Professor. University of California Los Angeles (UCLA): Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Foundation; Breast Cancer Research Foundation. University of California San Francisco (UCSF): UCSF Cancer Risk Program and Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. UK Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry (UKFOCR): Cancer Research UK. University of Pennsylvania (UPENN): NIH (R01-CA102776 and R01-CA083855); Breast Cancer Research Foundation; Susan G. Komen Foundation for the cure, Basser Research Center for BRCA. Cancer Family Registry University of Pittsburg (UPITT/MWH): Hackers for Hope Pittsburgh. Victorian Familial Cancer Trials Group (VFCTG): Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, National Breast Cancer Foundation. Women’s Cancer Program at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (WCP): Dr Karlan is funded by the ACS Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124. TN-D is a recipient of a Career Development Fellow from the National Breast Cancer Foundation (Australia, ECF-17-001).

(1) Background: The proportion and spectrum of germline pathogenic variants (PV) associated with an increased risk for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) varies among populations. (2) Methods: We analyzed 72 Belgian and 226 Czech PDAC patients by multigene panel testing. The prevalence of pathogenic variants (PV) in relation to personal/family cancer history were evaluated. PDAC risks were calculated using both gnomAD-NFE and population-matched controls. (3) Results: In 35/298 (11.7%) patients a PV in an established PDAC-predisposition gene was found. BRCA1/2 PV conferred a high risk in both populations, ATM and Lynch genes only in the Belgian subgroup. PV in other known PDAC-predisposition genes were rarer. Interestingly, a high frequency of CHEK2 PV was observed in both patient populations. PV in PDAC-predisposition genes were more frequent in patients with (i) multiple primary cancers (12/38, 32%), (ii) relatives with PDAC (15/56, 27%), (iii) relatives with breast/ovarian/colorectal cancer or melanoma (15/86, 17%) but more rare in sporadic PDAC (5/149, 3.4%). PV in homologous recombination genes were associated with improved overall survival (HR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.34–0.77). (4) Conclusions: Our analysis emphasizes the value of multigene panel testing in PDAC patients, especially in individuals with a positive family cancer history, and underlines the importance of population-matched controls for risk assessment.

Historically, it is estimated that 5-10% of cancer patients carry a causative genetic variant for a tumor predisposition syndrome. These conditions have high clinical relevance as they are actionable regarding risk-specific surveillance, predictive genetic testing, reproductive options, and - in some cases - risk reducing surgery or targeted therapy. Every individual is born with on average 0.5-1 exonic mosaic variants prevalent in single or multiple tissues. Depending on the tissues affected, mosaic conditions can abrogate the clinical phenotype of a tumor predisposition syndrome and can even go unrecognized, because it can be impossible or difficult to detect them with routine genetic testing in blood/leucocytes. On the other hand, it is estimated that at least 4% of presumed de novo variants are the result of low-level mosaicism (variant allele frequency

Item does not contain fulltext Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) is a syndrome defined by an increased risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer most commonly due to germline disease-causing variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, but also other causative genes such as PALB2, ATM and CHEK2. As genetic testing becomes more prevalent and new clinical data emerge, updates of national guidelines are required to incorporate these advances in our knowledge. The aim of this work is to review the guidelines for HBOC genetic testing and clinical surveillance across European countries, mostly affiliated to the European Reference Network (ERN) for Genetic Tumor Risk Syndroms (GENTURIS). Young onset breast cancer (BC), triple negative phenotype, or bilateral BC are considered as criteria for genetic testing in all, with differences in age limits. Testing of invasive epithelial non-mucinous ovarian cancer is also universally accepted. While breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is consistently recommended in high-risk individuals, age of onset for mammograms differ between 30 and 40 years. Risk-reducing mastectomy is commonly offered as an option, while risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy is universally recommended. The largest differences are observed with respect to ovarian surveillance prior to risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and in breast surveillance for carriers of non-BRCA1/2 genes. These differences in national guidelines reflect the variations in clinical consensus that may be reached in the absence of consistent evidence for some recommendations.

Contains fulltext : 229292.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) PURPOSE: We assessed the associations between population-based polygenic risk scores (PRS) for breast (BC) or epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) with cancer risks for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. METHODS: Retrospective cohort data on 18,935 BRCA1 and 12,339 BRCA2 female pathogenic variant carriers of European ancestry were available. Three versions of a 313 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) BC PRS were evaluated based on whether they predict overall, estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, or ER-positive BC, and two PRS for overall or high-grade serous EOC. Associations were validated in a prospective cohort. RESULTS: The ER-negative PRS showed the strongest association with BC risk for BRCA1 carriers (hazard ratio [HR] per standard deviation = 1.29 [95% CI 1.25-1.33], P = 3×10(-72)). For BRCA2, the strongest association was with overall BC PRS (HR = 1.31 [95% CI 1.27-1.36], P = 7×10(-50)). HR estimates decreased significantly with age and there was evidence for differences in associations by predicted variant effects on protein expression. The HR estimates were smaller than general population estimates. The high-grade serous PRS yielded the strongest associations with EOC risk for BRCA1 (HR = 1.32 [95% CI 1.25-1.40], P = 3×10(-22)) and BRCA2 (HR = 1.44 [95% CI 1.30-1.60], P = 4×10(-12)) carriers. The associations in the prospective cohort were similar. CONCLUSION: Population-based PRS are strongly associated with BC and EOC risks for BRCA1/2 carriers and predict substantial absolute risk differences for women at PRS distribution extremes.

Germline pathogenic alterations in the breast cancer susceptibility genes 1 (BRCA1) and 2 (BRCA2) are the most prevalent causes of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The increasing trend in proportion of cancer patients undergoing genetic testing, followed by predictive testing in families of new index patients, results in a significant increase of healthy germline BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who are at increased risk for breast, ovarian, and other BRCA-related cancers. This review aims to give an overview of available screening guidelines for female and male carriers of pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline BRCA1/2 variants per cancer type, incorporating malignancies that are more or less recently well correlated with BRCA1/2. We selected guidelines from national/international organizations and/or professional associations that were published or updated between January 1, 2015, and February 1, 2020. In total, 12 guidelines were included. This review reveals several significant discordances between the different guidelines. Optimal surveillance strategies depend on accurate age-specific cancer risk estimates, which are not reliably available for all BRCA-related cancers. Up-to-date national or international consensus guidelines are of utmost importance to harmonize counseling and proposed surveillance strategies for BRCA1/2 carriers.

Background Anemia is frequent in patients with cancer and is often multifactorial. Treatment depends on etiology and can consist of transfusions, intravenous iron (IV Fe), and/or erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA). Several studies have shown that cancer-related anemia is undertreated. The aim of this study is to compare usual practice in a university hospital with the international guidelines. Methods Using the hospital and pharmacy informatics all adults (≥18 years), who received a treatment for anemia (transfusion, IV Fe, ESA) from February to August 2016 during palliative chemotherapy, were identified. Episodes of care were defined as the start of palliative chemotherapy up until 4 weeks after end of chemotherapy. After informed consent, relevant data in the episode of care were collected. Usual practice was compared to international guidelines adapted to Belgium reimbursement criteria. Results A total of 72 episodes of care were included. At initiation of chemotherapy, anemia was present in 59.7% of cases. Iron status was measured in 54.2% of all cases. Iron deficiency was found in 34.7% of patients. Only 52% of the iron deficient patents received IV Fe. Fifteen cases were considered eligible for ESA, six (40%) of these patients received an ESA. The most frequent treatments for anemia were transfusions (91.7%), followed by IV Fe (18.1%). Only 8.3% received an ESA. Conclusion Assessment for iron, Vitamin B12, and FA deficits are underused. We detected a high rate of transfusions. In contrast there is still a low use of IV Fe and ESA's. There has been no major improvement in the implementation of the international guidelines in the last decade. We estimate that in at least 16.7-26.4% of our patients less to no transfusions would have been required, if guidelines were strictly followed.

In daily practice hypokalaemia is frequently observed. It can be accompanied by various adverse events and can even be life threatening. Frequent causes are intestinal and urinary loss, i.e. diarrhoea or use of diuretics. Glycyrrhizin-containing substances, such as liquorice, are a well-known but rare cause of hypokalaemia. They can induce an apparent mineralocorticoid excess-like syndrome, often accompanied by hypertension, metabolic alkalosis, sodium retention and renal potassium wasting [1]. We will discuss a case of liquorice-induced hypokalaemia causing serious electrolyte disorders and severe clinical symptoms.