4.7 Article

Do myeloproliferative neoplasms and multiple myeloma share the same genetic susceptibility loci?

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 148, Issue 7, Pages 1616-1624

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.33337

Keywords

genetic polymorphisms; genetic susceptibility; multiple myeloma; myeloproliferative neoplasms; polygenic risk score

Categories

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry of Health Grants [RC1803GA32]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There may be a common genetic background between MPN and MM, but further investigation is needed to fully understand the mechanisms behind it.
Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are a group of diseases that cause myeloid hematopoietic cells to overproliferate. Epidemiological and familial studies suggest that genetic factors contribute to the risk of developing MPN, but the genetic susceptibility of MPN is still not well known. Indeed, only few loci are known to have a clear role in the predisposition to this disease. Some studies reported a diagnosis of MPNs and multiple myeloma (MM) in the same patients, but the biological causes are still unclear. We tested the hypothesis that the two diseases share at least partly the same genetic risk loci. In the context of a European multicenter study with 460 cases and 880 controls, we analyzed the effect of the known MM risk loci, individually and in a polygenic risk score (PRS). The most significant result was obtained among patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) for PS0RS1C1-rs2285803, which showed to be associated with an increased risk (OR = 3.28, 95% CI 1.79-6.02, P = .00012, P = .00276 when taking into account multiple testing). Additionally, the PRS showed an association with MPN risk when comparing the last with the first quartile of the PRS (OR = 2.39, 95% CI 1.64-3.48, P = 5.98 x 10(-6)). In conclusion, our results suggest a potential common genetic background between MPN and MM, which needs to be further investigated.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available