bims-lifras Biomed News
on Li-Fraumeni syndrome
Issue of 2020‒10‒25
eight papers selected by
Joanna Zawacka-Pankau
University of Warsaw

  1. Cancer Genet. 2020 Oct 11. pii: S2210-7762(20)30276-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    Brandi G, Deserti M, Palloni A, Turchetti D, Zuntini R, Pedica F, Frega G, De Lorenzo S, Abbati F, Rizzo A, Di Marco M, Massari F, Tavolari S.
      BRCA1 associated protein-1 (BAP1) germline mutations define a novel hereditary cancer syndrome, namely BAP1 tumor predisposition syndrome (BAP1-TPDS), characterized by an increased susceptibility to develop different cancer types, including mesothelioma, uveal and cutaneous melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma. Currently, the role of BAP1 germline mutations in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) pathogenesis is less known. Here we report the first clinical case of a female patient who developed an iCCA when she was 47-years-old and was found to carry a novel germline mutation at a splicing site of exon 4 in BAP1 gene (NM_004656.4: c.255_255+6del). An accurate anamnesis revealed the absence of risk factors linked to iCCA development, except for a low occupational exposure to asbestos. In tumor tissue, BAP1 sequencing, multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification and immunoistochemistry showed the loss of heterozygosity and lack of nuclear expression, suggesting that BAP1 wild-type allele and functional protein were lost in cancer cells, in line with the classical two-hit model of tumor suppressor genes. Further studies are needed to confirm whether iCCA may be included into BAP1-TPDS cancer phenotypes and whether minimal asbestos exposure may facilitate the development of this malignancy in individuals carrying BAP1 germline mutations.
    Keywords:  Asbestos; BAP1 germline mutation; Cholangiocarcinoma
  2. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2020 Oct 20. pii: ijgc-2020-001927. [Epub ahead of print]
    Kim SR, Tone A, Kim R, Cesari M, Clarke B, Eiriksson L, Hart T, Aronson M, Holter S, Lytwyn A, Maganti M, Oldfield L, Gallinger S, Bernardini MQ, Oza AM, Djordjevic B, Lerner-Ellis J, Van de Laar E, Vicus D, Pugh TJ, Pollett A, Ferguson SE.
      OBJECTIVES: For synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers, most centers rely on mismatch repair testing of the endometrial cancer to identify Lynch syndrome, and neglect the ovarian tumor site completely. We examined the mismatch repair immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability results from the endometrium and ovary to assess discordance between the tumor sites and between tests.METHODS: 30 women with newly diagnosed synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancer were prospectively recruited from three cancer centers in Ontario, Canada. Both tumor sites were assessed for mismatch repair deficiency by immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability test; discordance in results between tumor sites and discordance between test results at each site was examined. Cases with discordant results had tumors sequenced with a targeted panel in order to reconcile the findings. All women underwent mismatch repair gene germline testing.
    RESULTS: Of 30 patients, 11 (37%) were mismatch repair deficient or microsatellite instable at either tumor site, with 5 (17%) testing positive for Lynch syndrome. Mismatch repair immunohistochemistry expression was discordant between endometrial and ovarian tumor sites in 2 of 27 patients (7%) while microsatellite instability results were discordant in 2 of 25 patients (8%). Relying on immunohistochemistry or microsatellite instability alone on the endometrial tumor would have missed one and three cases of Lynch syndrome, respectively. One patient with Lynch syndrome with a PMS2 pathogenic variant was not detected by either immunohistochemistry or microsatellite instability testing. The rate of discordance between immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability test was 3.8% in the ovary and 12% in the endometrium.
    CONCLUSIONS: There was discordance in immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability results between tumor sites and between tests within each site. Endometrial tumor testing with mismatch repair immunohistochemistry performed well, but missed one case of Lynch syndrome. Given the high incidence of Lynch syndrome (17%), consideration may be given to germline testing in all patients with synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers.
    Keywords:  lynch syndrome II; ovarian cancer; uterine cancer
  3. Cancers (Basel). 2020 Oct 16. pii: E3015. [Epub ahead of print]12(10):
    Wiggins GAR, Walker LC, Pearson JF.
      Germline pathogenic variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2 increase cumulative lifetime risk up to 75% for breast cancer and 76% for ovarian cancer. Genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants has become an important part of clinical practice for cancer risk assessment and for reducing individual risk of developing cancer. Genetic testing can produce three outcomes: positive (a pathogenic variant), uninformative (no pathogenic variant) and uncertain significance (a variant of unknown clinical significance). More than one third of BRCA1 and BRCA2 variants identified have been classified as variants of uncertain significance, presenting a challenge for clinicians. To address this important clinical challenge, a number of studies have been undertaken to establish a gene expression phenotype for pathogenic BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant carriers in several diseased and normal tissues. However, the consistency of gene expression phenotypes described in studies has been poor. To determine if gene expression analysis has been a successful approach for variant classification, we describe the design and comparability of 23 published gene expression studies that have profiled cells from BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers. We show the impact of advancements in expression-based technologies, the importance of developing larger study cohorts and the necessity to better understand variables affecting gene expression profiles across different tissue types.
    Keywords:  breast cancer; familial cancer; gene expression; microarray; ovarian cancer
  4. Cancers (Basel). 2020 Oct 19. pii: E3046. [Epub ahead of print]12(10):
    Pavanello M, Chan IH, Ariff A, Pharoah PD, Gayther SA, Ramus SJ.
      A family history of ovarian or breast cancer is the strongest risk factor for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Germline deleterious variants in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes confer EOC risks by age 80, of 44% and 17% respectively. The mismatch repair genes, particularly MSH2 and MSH6, are also EOC susceptibility genes. Several other DNA repair genes, BRIP1, RAD51C, RAD51D, and PALB2, have been identified as moderate risk EOC genes. EOC has five main histotypes; high-grade serous (HGS), low-grade serous (LGS), clear cell (CCC), endometrioid (END), and mucinous (MUC). This review examines the current understanding of the contribution of rare genetic variants to EOC, focussing on providing frequency data for each histotype. We provide an overview of frequency and risk for pathogenic variants in the known susceptibility genes as well as other proposed genes. We also describe the progress to-date to understand the role of missense variants and the different breast and ovarian cancer risks for each gene. Identification of susceptibility genes have clinical impact by reducing disease-associated mortality through improving risk prediction, with the possibility of prevention strategies, and developing new targeted treatments and these clinical implications are also discussed.
    Keywords:  ovarian cancer risk; rare germline variants; susceptibility genes
  5. Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 19. 10(1): 17687
    Aoude LG, Bonazzi VF, Brosda S, Patel K, Koufariotis LT, Oey H, Nones K, Wood S, Pearson JV, Lonie JM, Arneil M, Atkinson V, Smithers BM, Waddell N, Barbour AP.
      Patients with late stage resected cutaneous melanoma have poor overall survival (OS) and experience irreversible adverse events from systemic therapy. There is a clinical need to identify biomarkers to predict outcome. Performing germline/tumour whole-exome sequencing of 44 stage III/IV melanoma patients we identified pathogenic germline mutations in CDKN2A, CDK4, ATM, POLH, MRE11A, RECQL4 and XPC, affecting 7/44 patients. These mutations were associated with poor OS (p = 0.0082). We confirmed our findings in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) human skin cutaneous melanoma cohort where we identified pathogenic variants in 40/455 patients (p = 0.0203). Combining these cohorts (n = 499) further strengthened these findings showing germline carriers had worse OS (p = 0.0009). Additionally, we determined whether tumour mutation burden (TMB) or BRAF status were prognostic markers of survival. Low TMB rate (< 20 Mut/Mb; p = 0.0034) and BRAF p.V600 mutation (p = 0.0355) were associated with worse progression-free survival. Combining these biomarkers indicated that V600 mutant patients had significantly lower TMB (p = 0.0155). This was confirmed in the TCGA (n = 443, p = 0.0007). Integrative analysis showed germline mutation status conferred the highest risk (HR 5.2, 95% CI 1.72-15.7). Stage IV (HR 2.5, 0.74-8.6) and low TMB (HR 2.3, 0.57-9.4) were similar, whereas BRAF V600 status was the weakest prognostic biomarker (HR 1.5, 95% CI 0.44-5.2).
  6. J Gastroenterol. 2020 Oct 22.
    Tezuka K, Okamura Y, Sugiura T, Ito T, Yamamoto Y, Ashida R, Ohgi K, Uesaka K.
      BACKGROUND: Familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) is defined as a family in which at least two first-degree relatives have pancreatic cancer (PC). The prognostic significance of PC in an FPC family after surgery is not fully understood.METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 427 patients who underwent pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma between January 2008 and December 2016. PC patients who also had at least one first-degree relative with PC were defined as FPC patients. The associations between recurrence and clinicopathological characteristics were analyzed for both FPC and non-FPC patients.
    RESULTS: FPC patients accounted for 31 of the 427 (7.3%) patients. Recurrence occurred in 72.1% of the total cohort and in 87.1% of the 31 FPC patients. Multivariate analysis showed that being an FPC patient was an independent predictor for relapse-free survival (RFS) (hazard ratio [HR] 1.52, P = 0.038). Although univariate analysis revealed that being an FPC patient was significantly associated with poorer overall survival (OS) (P < 0.001), multivariate analysis showed that being an FPC patient was not an independent predictor for OS (P = 0.164). Dichotomization of the 427 patients into those who received (n = 317: 17 FPC and 300 non-FPC patients) and did not receive (n = 110: 14 FPC and 96 non-FPC patients) adjuvant chemotherapy revealed that being an FPC patient was an independent predictor for RFS (HR 2.50, P < 0.001) and OS (HR 2.30, P = 0.003) only for patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy.
    CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that being an FPC patient is a significant prognostic indicator for PC patients who undergo resection and receive adjuvant chemotherapy.
    Keywords:  Adjuvant chemotherapy; Familial pancreatic cancer; Family history; Recurrence; Survival