4.6 Article

Twenty-Five Years Experience on RET Genetic Screening on Hereditary MTC: An Update on The Prevalence of Germline RET Mutations

Journal

GENES
Volume 10, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes10090698

Keywords

medullary thyroid carcinoma; genetic screening; RET; VUS

Funding

  1. Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro [21790]
  2. Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco [AIFA-2016-02365049]
  3. Studio del profilo di progressione tumorale nei carcinomi midollari tiroidei e paratiroidei [PRA_ 2018_ 27]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Pathogenic germline mutations affecting the RET proto-oncogene underlie the development of hereditary medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC). The aims of this study were to evaluate the prevalence of germline RET mutations in a large series of MTC, collected over the last 25 years, and to reappraise their clinical significance. Methods: We performed RET genetic screening in 2031 Italian subjects: patients who presented with sporadic (n = 1264) or hereditary (n = 117) MTC, plus 650 relatives. Results: A RET germline mutation was found in 115/117 (98.3%) hereditary and in 78/1264 (6.2%) apparently sporadic cases: in total, 42 distinct germline variants were found. The V804M mutation was the most prevalent in our cohort, especially in cases that presented as sporadic, while mutations affecting cysteine residues were the most frequent in the group of clinically hereditary cases. All M918T mutations were de novo and exclusively associated with MEN2B. Several variants of unknown significance (VUS) were also found. Conclusions: a) RET genetic screening is informative in both hereditary and sporadic MTC; b) the prevalence of different mutations varies with V804M being the most frequent; c) the association genotype-phenotype is confirmed; d) by RET screening, some VUS can be found but their pathogenic role must be demonstrated before screening the family.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available