Search

Genetic testing of the APC gene by sequencing analysis and MLPA is available across commercial laboratories for the definitive genetic diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). However, some genetic alterations are difficult to detect using conventional analyses. Here, we report a case of a complex genomic APC-TP63 rearrangement, which was identified in a patient with FAP by a series of genomic analyses, including multigene panel testing, chromosomal analyses, and long-read sequencing. A woman in her thirties was diagnosed with FAP due to multiple polyps in her colon and underwent total colectomy. Subsequent examination revealed fundic gland polyposis. No family history suggesting FAP was noted except for a first-degree relative with desmoid fibromatosis. The conventional APC gene testing was performed by her former doctor, but no pathogenic variant was detected, except for 2 variants of unknown significance. The patient was referred to our hospital for further genetic analysis. After obtaining informed consent in genetic counseling, we conducted a multigene panel analysis. As insertion of a part of the TP63 sequence was detected within exon16 of APC, further analyses, including chromosomal analysis and long-read sequencing, were performed and a complex translocation between chromosomes 3 and 5 containing several breakpoints in TP63 and APC was identified. No phenotype associated with TP63 pathogenic variants, such as split-hand/foot malformation (SHFM) or ectrodactyly, ectodermal dysplasia, or cleft lip/palate syndrome (EEC) was identified in the patient or her relatives. Multimodal genomic analyses should be considered in cases where no pathogenic germline variants are detected by conventional genetic testing despite an evident medical or family history of hereditary cancer syndromes.

Background: BRCA1 c.5096G>A (p. Arg1699Gln) (hereinafter BRCA1 R1699Q) is classified as a pathogenic genetic variant despite its lower penetrance of breast and ovarian cancers compared to other BRCA1 variants. However, this mutation is currently reported as a 'special interpretation' variant in the BRACAnalysis® because the response to platinum agents and poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors remains unknown in patients with this mutation. Case presentation: We present a case of stage IIIc high-grade primary peritoneal cancer in a 69-year-old woman with germline BRCA1 R1699Q variant. She received platinum-containing chemotherapy followed by surgery. Eight months later, the patient experienced recurrence and received six cycles of chemotherapy and olaparib maintenance therapy. However, the disease progressed after only 5 months, and she received another chemotherapy drug. This patient responded slightly to platinum agents and had shorter progression-free survival on olaparib compared with clinical trial data. myChoice® CDx also showed Genomic Instability Score (GIS) was 50. This patient had no other gene mutations which could cause homologous recombination deficiency. Conclusion: This is the first report of the clinical outcome of PARP inhibitor and platinum-containing chemotherapy in a patient with a BRCA1 R1699Q variant. Despite BRCA1 mutation and high GIS, used as indicators of drug sensitivity, the recurrent tumor did not respond well to platinum agents and olaparib. BRCA1 R1699Q variant could differ from others in cancer risk and in drug response. Further studies are needed to confirm these observations.