4.5 Article

Redefinition of familial intestinal gastric cancer: clinical and genetic perspectives

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS
Volume 58, Issue 1, Pages 1-11

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2019-106346

Keywords

cancer; gastric; molecular genetics; clinical genetics; diagnostics; evidence based practice

Funding

  1. FCT, the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology
  2. FEDER - Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional funds through the COMPETE 2020 -Operacional Programme for Competitiveness and Internationalisation (POCI), Portugal 2020
  3. Portuguese funds through FCT/Ministerio da Ciencia, Tecnologia e Inovacao [POCI-01-0145--FEDER-007274, POCI-01-0145-FEDER-30164]
  4. Norte Portugal Regional Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) [NORTE01-0145-FEDER-000029, NORTE-01-0145--FEDER-000003]
  5. 'NSFC - No Stomach for Cancer': 'Defining the Contribution of Mutations in CDH1 Non-Coding Regions and Other Known Susceptibility Genes to Hereditary Gastric Cancer'
  6. FCT [SFRH/BPD/86543/2012, SFRH/BPD/89764/2012, SFRH/BPD/79499/2011, SFRH/BD/140796/2018]
  7. POCI
  8. Programas Operacionais Regionais de Lisboa e do Algarve e pela Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia, Project GenomePT - Laboratorio Nacional para a Sequenciacao e Analise de Genomas [22184]
  9. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/140796/2018, SFRH/BPD/86543/2012, SFRH/BPD/89764/2012, SFRH/BPD/79499/2011] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study provides the first data-driven testing criteria for Familial Intestinal Gastric Cancer (FIGC) families and supports FIGC as a genetically determined, likely polygenic, gastric cancer-predisposing disease with earlier onset and distinct from patients with Sporadic Intestinal Gastric Cancer (SIGC) at the germline and somatic levels. The study found that FIGC patients developed gastric cancer at least 10 years earlier and carried more TP53 germline common variants than SIGC patients, with distinct germline and somatic variant profiles between FIGC and SIGC.
Background Familial intestinal gastric cancer (FIGC) remains genetically unexplained and without testing/clinical criteria. Herein, we characterised the age of onset and disease spectrum of 50 FIGC families and searched for genetic causes potentially underlying a monogenic or an oligogenic/polygenic inheritance pattern. Methods Normal and tumour DNA from 50 FIGC probands were sequenced using Illumina custom panels on MiSeq, and their respective germline and somatic landscapes were compared with corresponding landscapes from sporadic intestinal gastric cancer (SIGC) and hereditary diffuse gastric cancer cohorts. Results The most prevalent phenotype in FIGC families was gastric cancer, detected in 138 of 208 patients (50 intestinal gastric cancer probands and 88 unknown gastric cancer histology relatives), followed by colorectal and breast cancers. After excluding benign and intronic variants lacking impact in splicing, 12 rare high-quality variants were found exclusively in 11 FIGC probands. Only two probands carried potentially deleterious variants, but lacked somatic second-hits, weakly supporting the monogenic hypothesis for FIGC. However, FIGC probands developed gastric cancer at least 10 years earlier and carried more TP53 germline common variants than SIGC (p=4.5E-03); FIGC and SIGC could be distinguished by specific germline and somatic variant profiles; there was an excess of FIGC tumours presenting microsatellite instability (38%); and FIGC tumours displayed significantly more somatic common variants than SIGC tumours (p=4.2E-06). Conclusion This study proposed the first data-driven testing criteria for FIGC families, and supported FIGC as a genetically determined, likely polygenic, gastric cancer-predisposing disease, with earlier onset and distinct from patients with SIGC at the germline and somatic levels.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available