Detail
Článek
Článek online
FT
Medvik - BMČ
  • Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Informing patients about their mutation tests: CDKN2A c.256G>A in melanoma as an example

K. Hemminki, A. Srivastava, S. Rachakonda, O. Bandapalli, E. Nagore, A. Hemminki, R. Kumar,

. 2020 ; 18 (-) : 15. [pub] 20200731

Jazyk angličtina Země Polsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc20021902

Background: When germline mutations are suspected as causal in cancer, patient DNA may be sequenced to detect variants in relevant genes. If a particular mutation has not been reported in reliable family studies, genetic counselors are facing a dilemma of appropriately informing patients. Many sequencing facilities provide an interpretation of the findings based on the available sequence databases or on prediction tools that are curated from bioinformatics and mechanistic datasets. The counseling dilemma is exacerbated if the pedigree data are not informative but the in silico predictions suggest pathogenicity. Methods: We present here a real world example of the c.256G > A CDKN2A variant, which was detected in one melanoma patient where two siblings were diagnosed with melanoma in situ. We investigated a detailed family history of the affected siblings in order to survey probability of the cancer risks within the context to this mutation. Results: This c.256G > A CDKN2A variant was detected in one of the brothers and in the melanoma-free mother while the other brother in the family tested negative. The variant had been previously described in one patient from a melanoma family. In the family under investigation, the mother's 16 first-and second-degree relatives had survived past the median onset age for melanoma and none presented melanoma. We tested the variant using multiple bioinformatic tools that all predicted deleteriousness of the variant. The genetic counseling report to the melanoma patient stated that the CDKN2A variant was 'likely pathogenic' and the disease was defined as 'likely hereditary melanoma'. Conclusions: The pedigree data showed at the most a low penetrance variant, which, if taken into consideration, might have altered the provided diagnosis. When dealing with 'practically' unknown variants the counselors would be advised to incorporate a detailed family history rather than basing predictions on functionality provided by sequencing facilities.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc20021902
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20201204093219.0
007      
ta
008      
201125s2020 pl f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1186/s13053-020-00146-x $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)32760473
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a pl
100    1_
$a Hemminki, Kari $u Division of Molecular Genetic Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 580, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany. Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany. Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Center in Pilsen, Charles University in Prague, 30605 Pilsen, Czech Republic.
245    10
$a Informing patients about their mutation tests: CDKN2A c.256G>A in melanoma as an example / $c K. Hemminki, A. Srivastava, S. Rachakonda, O. Bandapalli, E. Nagore, A. Hemminki, R. Kumar,
520    9_
$a Background: When germline mutations are suspected as causal in cancer, patient DNA may be sequenced to detect variants in relevant genes. If a particular mutation has not been reported in reliable family studies, genetic counselors are facing a dilemma of appropriately informing patients. Many sequencing facilities provide an interpretation of the findings based on the available sequence databases or on prediction tools that are curated from bioinformatics and mechanistic datasets. The counseling dilemma is exacerbated if the pedigree data are not informative but the in silico predictions suggest pathogenicity. Methods: We present here a real world example of the c.256G > A CDKN2A variant, which was detected in one melanoma patient where two siblings were diagnosed with melanoma in situ. We investigated a detailed family history of the affected siblings in order to survey probability of the cancer risks within the context to this mutation. Results: This c.256G > A CDKN2A variant was detected in one of the brothers and in the melanoma-free mother while the other brother in the family tested negative. The variant had been previously described in one patient from a melanoma family. In the family under investigation, the mother's 16 first-and second-degree relatives had survived past the median onset age for melanoma and none presented melanoma. We tested the variant using multiple bioinformatic tools that all predicted deleteriousness of the variant. The genetic counseling report to the melanoma patient stated that the CDKN2A variant was 'likely pathogenic' and the disease was defined as 'likely hereditary melanoma'. Conclusions: The pedigree data showed at the most a low penetrance variant, which, if taken into consideration, might have altered the provided diagnosis. When dealing with 'practically' unknown variants the counselors would be advised to incorporate a detailed family history rather than basing predictions on functionality provided by sequencing facilities.
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Srivastava, Aayushi $u Hopp Children's Cancer Center (KiTZ), Heidelberg, Germany. Division of Pediatric Neurooncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany.
700    1_
$a Rachakonda, Sivaramakrishna $u Division of Molecular Genetic Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 580, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany. Division of Functional Genome Analysis (B070), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
700    1_
$a Bandapalli, Obul $u Hopp Children's Cancer Center (KiTZ), Heidelberg, Germany. Division of Pediatric Neurooncology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Heidelberg, Germany.
700    1_
$a Nagore, Eduardo $u Department of Dermatology, Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, València, Spain. School of Medicine, Universidad Católica de Valencia San Vicente Mártir, València, Spain.
700    1_
$a Hemminki, Akseli $u Cancer Gene Therapy Group, Translational Immunology Research Program, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. Comprehensive Cancer Center, Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
700    1_
$a Kumar, Rajiv $u Division of Molecular Genetic Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 580, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany. Division of Functional Genome Analysis (B070), German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
773    0_
$w MED00175714 $t Hereditary cancer in clinical practice $x 1731-2302 $g Roč. 18, č. - (2020), s. 15
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32760473 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20201125 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20201204093217 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ind $b bmc $g 1591611 $s 1112574
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2020 $b 18 $c - $d 15 $e 20200731 $i 1731-2302 $m Hereditary cancer in clinical practice $n Hered Cancer Clin Pract $x MED00175714
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20201125

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Pouze přihlášení uživatelé

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...