bims-lifras Biomed News
on Li-Fraumeni syndrome
Issue of 2020‒09‒20
ten papers selected by
Joanna Zawacka-Pankau
University of Warsaw

  1. Cancer Med. 2020 Sep 15.
    Hendrickson PG, Luo Y, Kohlmann W, Schiffman J, Maese L, Bishop AJ, Lloyd S, Kokeny KE, Hitchcock YJ, Poppe MM, Gaffney DK, Tao R.
      BACKGROUND: Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS) is a rare cancer-predisposing condition caused by germline mutations in TP53. Conventional wisdom and prior work has implied an increased risk of secondary malignancy in LFS patients treated with radiation therapy (RT); however, this risk is not well-characterized. Here we describe the risk of subsequent malignancy and cancer-related death in LFS patients after undergoing RT for a first or second primary cancer.METHODS: We reviewed a multi-institutional hereditary cancer registry of patients with germline TP53 mutations who were treated from 2004 to 2017. We assessed the rate of subsequent malignancy and death in the patients who received RT (RT group) as part of their cancer treatment compared to those who did not (non-RT group).
    RESULTS: Forty patients with LFS were identified and 14 received RT with curative intent as part of their cancer treatment. The median time to follow-up after RT was 4.5 years. Fifty percent (7/14) of patients in the curative-intent group developed a subsequent malignancy (median time 3.5 years) compared to 46% of patients in the non-RT group (median time 5.0 years). Four of seven subsequent malignancies occurred within a prior radiation field and all shared histology with the primary cancer suggesting recurrence rather than new malignancy.
    CONCLUSION: We found that four of14 patients treated with RT developed in-field malignancies. All had the same histology as the primary suggesting local recurrences rather than RT-induced malignancies. We recommend that RT should be considered as part of the treatment algorithm when clinically indicated and after multidisciplinary discussion.
    Keywords:  LFS; Li-Fraumeni syndrome; RT-induced malignancy; p53; radiation
  2. Chin Clin Oncol. 2020 Aug 27. pii: cco-19-207. [Epub ahead of print]
    Telvizian T, Mukherji D.
      Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer in men. Although early disease can be cured or remain indolent, advanced castration-resistant disease remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. One approach to precision screening may be the use of germline genetic testing. Mutations in high-risk genes such as BRCA 2 are rare however polygenic risk scores could potentially limit screening to only those at higher risk, improving the benefit-to-harm ratio. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Prostate Cancer guidelines have recently recommended testing for germline mutations in patients diagnosed with high-risk or metastatic prostate cancer, regardless of family history. New therapeutic options are emerging for genomically-defined subsets of patients; germline or somatic mutations in homologous recombination repair genes suggest potential susceptibility to PARP inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapy, whereas mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes may confer susceptibility to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Current barriers to genetic testing include cost, limited access to genetic counseling for those found to have germline mutations and lack of clear guidelines on the clinical applicability of results. Work is ongoing in three key areas: Using germline genetic testing to improve screening, establishing treatment algorithms for patients with known pathogenic germline or somatic mutations diagnosed with localized disease, and the use of genomic biomarkers to define treatment-selection for patients with advanced prostate cancer.
    Keywords:  BRCA; PARP inhibitor; genetic testing; germline mutation; prostate; prostate cancer
  3. PLoS Med. 2020 Sep;17(9): e1003263
    Ryan NAJ, McMahon R, Tobi S, Snowsill T, Esquibel S, Wallace AJ, Bunstone S, Bowers N, Mosneag IE, Kitson SJ, O'Flynn H, Ramchander NC, Sivalingam VN, Frayling IM, Bolton J, McVey RJ, Evans DG, Crosbie EJ.
      BACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome (LS) predisposes to endometrial cancer (EC), colorectal cancer, and other cancers through inherited pathogenic variants affecting mismatch-repair (MMR) genes. Diagnosing LS in women with EC can reduce subsequent cancer mortality through colonoscopic surveillance and aspirin chemoprevention; it also enables cascade testing of relatives. A growing consensus supports LS screening in EC; however, the expected proportion of test positives, and optimal testing strategy is uncertain. Previous studies from insurance-based healthcare systems were limited by narrow selection criteria, failure to apply reference standard tests consistently, and poor conversion to definitive testing. The aim of this study was to establish the prevalence of LS and the diagnostic accuracy of LS testing strategies in an unselected EC population.METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was a prospective cross-sectional study carried out at a large United Kingdom gynaecological cancer centre between October 2015 and January 2017. Women diagnosed with EC or atypical hyperplasia (AH) were offered LS testing. Tumours underwent MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC), microsatellite instability (MSI), and targeted MLH1-methylation testing. Women <50 years, with strong family histories and/or indicative tumour molecular features, underwent MMR germline sequencing. Somatic MMR sequencing was performed when indicative molecular features were unexplained by LS or MLH1-hypermethylation. The main outcome measures were the prevalence of LS in an unselected EC population and the diagnostic accuracy of clinical and tumour testing strategies for risk stratifying women with EC for MMR germline sequencing. In total, 500 women participated in the study; only 2 (<1%) declined. Germline sequencing was indicated and conducted for 136 and 135 women, respectively. A total of 16/500 women (3.2%, 95% CI 1.8% to 5.1%) had LS, and 11 more (2.2%) had MMR variants of uncertain significance. Restricting testing to age <50 years, indicative family history (revised Bethesda guidelines or Amsterdam II criteria) or endometrioid histology alone would have missed 9/16 (56%), 8/13 (62%) or 9/13 (69%), and 5/16 (31%) cases of LS, respectively. In total 132/500 tumours were MMR deficient by IHC of which 83/132 (63%) had MLH1-hypermethylation, and 16/49 (33%) of the remaining patients had LS (16/132 with MMR deficiency, 12%). MMR-IHC with targeted MLH1-methylation testing was more discriminatory for LS than MSI with targeted methylation testing, with 100% versus 56.3% (16/16 versus 9/16) sensitivity (p = 0.016) and equal 97.5% (468/484) specificity; 64% MSI-H and 73% MMR deficient tumours unexplained by LS or MLH1-hypermethylation had somatic MMR mutations. The main limitation of the study was failure to conduct MMR germline sequencing for the whole study population, which means that the sensitivity and specificity of tumour triage strategies for LS detection may be overestimated, although the risk of LS in women with no clinical or tumour predictors is expected to be extremely low.
    CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that age, family history, and histology are imprecise clinical correlates of LS-EC. IHC outperformed MSI for tumour triage and reliably identified both germline and somatic MMR mutations. The 3.2% proportion of LS-EC is similar to colorectal cancer, supporting unselected screening of EC for LS.
  4. JCO Precis Oncol. 2020 ;pii: PO.19.00284. [Epub ahead of print]4
    Boyle JL, Hahn AW, Kapron AL, Kohlmann W, Greenberg SE, Parnell TJ, Teerlink CC, Maughan BL, Feng BJ, Cannon-Albright L, Agarwal N, Cooney KA.
      PURPOSE: Germline mutations in DNA repair (DR) genes and susceptibility genes CDKN2A and HOXB13 have previously been associated with prostate cancer (PC) incidence and/or progression. However, the role and prevalence of this class of mutations in metastatic PC (mPC) are not fully understood.PATIENTS AND METHODS: To evaluate the frequency of pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PVs/LPVs) in men with mPC, this study sequenced 38 DR genes, CDKN2A, and HOXB13 in a predominantly white cohort of 317 patients with mPC. A PC registry at the University of Utah was used for patient sample acquisition and retrospective clinical data collection. Deep target sequencing allowed for germline and copy number variant analyses. Validated PVs/LPVs were integrated with clinical and demographic data for statistical correlation analyses.
    RESULTS: All pathogenic variants were found in men self-reported as white, with a carrier frequency of 8.5% (DR genes, 7.3%; CDKN2A/HOXB13, 1.2%). Consistent with previous reports, mutations were most frequently identified in the breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA2. It was also found that 50% of identified PVs/LPVs were categorized as founder mutations with European origins. Correlation analyses did not support a trend toward more advanced or earlier-onset disease in comparisons between carriers and noncarriers of deleterious DR or HOXB13 G84E mutations.
    CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate a lower prevalence of germline PVs/LPVs in an unselected, predominantly white mPC cohort than previously reported, which may have implications for the design of clinical trials testing targeted therapies. Larger studies in broad and diverse populations are needed to more accurately define the prevalence of germline mutations in men with mPC.
  5. JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 ;pii: PO.19.00067. [Epub ahead of print]3
    Yadav S, Hart SN, Hu C, Hillman D, Lee KY, Gnanaolivu R, Na J, Polley EC, Couch FJ, Kohli M.
      PURPOSE: To compare the prevalence of germline mutations in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and assess the impact of mutations on progression to castration resistance and overall survival.METHODS: Targeted sequencing of germline DNA from 704 men (221 at the time of mHSPC and 483 at the time of mCRPC) enrolled in two advanced prostate cancer registries at Mayo Clinic between 2003 and 2013 was performed for 21 predisposition genes. Frequencies of pathogenic mutations were compared in patients and reference controls to identify genes enriched in metastatic prostate cancer. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify predictors of progression to mCRPC and overall survival.
    RESULTS: Sixty-eight germline mutations in 12 genes were identified in 66 men (9.4%). Mutations in ATM, BRCA2, CHEK2, FANCM, and TP53 were significantly enriched (odds ratio greater than 2.0) in the metastatic cohorts compared with reference controls. The frequency of germline mutations was similar for patients with mHSPC and mCRPC (11.8% v 8.3%; P = .16). The median time to progression from mHSPC to mCRPC was 23.1 and 32.5 months for patients with and without mutations, respectively (P = .96). Although older age at diagnosis, Gleason score greater than 7, elevated alkaline phosphatase level, and high volume of disease were associated with shorter duration of progression to mCRPC and poor overall survival, mutation status was not (progression to mCRPC hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.09; P = .17; overall survival hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.34; P = .98).
    CONCLUSION: Similarly elevated rates of germline predisposition gene mutations in mHSPC and mCRPC suggest that germline genetic testing may help to guide medical management for all patients with advanced metastatic prostate cancer. Mutation status was not associated with shorter progression to mCRPC or poor overall survival.
  6. Dermatol Online J. 2020 Aug 15. pii: 13030/qt5t22m5gk. [Epub ahead of print]26(8):
    Bottillo I, Valiante M, Menale L, Paiardini A, Papi L, Janson G, Sestini R, Iorio A, De Simone P, Frascione P, Grammatico P.
      Pancreatic cancer-melanoma syndrome (PCMS) is an inherited condition in which mutation carriers have an increased risk of malignant melanoma and/or pancreatic cancer. About 30% of PCMS cases carry mutations in CDKN2A. This gene encodes several protein isoforms, one of which, known as p16, regulates the cell-cycle by interacting with CDK4/CDK6 kinases and with several non-CDK proteins. Herein, we report on a novel CDKN2A germline in-frame deletion (c.52_57delACGGCC) found in an Italian family with PCMS. By segregation analysis, the c.52_57delACGGCC was proven to segregate in kindred with cutaneous melanoma (CM), in kindred with CM and pancreatic cancer, and in a single case presenting only with pancreatic cancer. In the literature, duplication mapping in the same genic region has been already reported at the germline level in several unrelated CM cases as a variant of unknown clinical significance. A computational approach for studying the effect of mutational changes over p16 protein structure showed that both the deletion and the duplication of the c.52_57 nucleotides result in protein misfolding and loss of interactors' binding. In conclusion, the present results argue that the quantitative alteration of nucleotides c.52_57 has a pathogenic role in p16 function and that the c.52_57delACGGCC is associated with PCMS.
  7. Hered Cancer Clin Pract. 2020 ;18 18
    Andersson A, Hawranek C, Öfverholm A, Ehrencrona H, Grill K, Hajdarevic S, Melin B, Tham E, Hellquist BN, Rosén A.
      Background: Targeted surveillance of at-risk individuals in families with increased risk of hereditary cancer is an effective prevention strategy if relatives are identified, informed and enrolled in screening programs. Despite the potential benefits, many eligible at-risk relatives remain uninformed of their cancer risk. This study describes the general public's opinion on disclosure of hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) risk information, as well as preferences on the source and the mode of information.Methods: A random sample of the general public was assessed through a Swedish citizen web-panel. Respondents were presented with scenarios of being an at-risk relative in a family that had an estimated increased hereditary risk of CRC; either 10% (moderate) or 70% (high) lifetime risk. A colonoscopy was presented as a preventive measure. Results were analysed to identify significant differences between groups using the Pearson's chi-square (χ2) test.
    Results: Of 1800 invited participants, 977 completed the survey (54%). In the moderate and high-risk scenarios, 89.2 and 90.6% respectively, would like to receive information about a potential hereditary risk of CRC (χ2, p = .755). The desire to be informed was higher among women (91.5%) than men (87.0%, χ2, p = .044). No significant differences were found when comparing different age groups, educational levels, place of residence and having children or not. The preferred source of risk information was a healthcare professional in both moderate and high-risk scenarios (80.1 and 75.5%). However, 18.1 and 20.1% respectively would prefer to be informed by a family member. Assuming that healthcare professionals disclosed the information, the favoured mode of information was letter and phone (38.4 and 33.2%).
    Conclusions: In this study a majority of respondents wanted to be informed about a potential hereditary risk of CRC and preferred healthcare professionals to communicate this information. The two presented levels of CRC lifetime risk did not significantly affect the interest in being informed. Our data offer insights into the needs and preferences of the Swedish population, providing a rationale for developing complementary healthcare-assisted communication pathways to realise the full potential of targeted prevention of hereditary CRC.
    Keywords:  Cancer prevention; Colorectal cancer; Family disclosure; Healthcare disclosure; Hereditary cancer; Informing relatives; Public opinion; Risk information