4.5 Review

Fanconi anaemia, BRCA2 mutations and childhood cancer: a developmental perspective from clinical and epidemiological observations with implications for genetic counselling

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL GENETICS
卷 51, 期 2, 页码 71-75

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2013-101642

关键词

-

资金

  1. Leukaemia Lymphoma Research UK
  2. Kay Kendall Leukaemia Fund
  3. European Research Council under the European Union [310018]
  4. Cancer Research UK [13274] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. European Research Council (ERC) [310018] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fanconi anaemia (FA) is an inherited condition characterised by congenital and developmental abnormalities and a strong cancer predisposition. In around 3-5% of cases FA is caused by biallelic mutations in the BRCA2 gene. Individuals heterozygous for BRCA2 mutations have an increased risk of inherited breast and ovarian cancer. We reviewed the mutation spectrum in BRCA2-associated FA, and the spectrum and frequency of BRCA2 mutations in distinct populations. The rarity of FA due to biallelic BRCA2 mutations supports a fundamental role of BRCA2 for prevention of malignant transformation during development. The spectrum of malignancies seen associated with FA support the concept of a tissue selectivity of BRCA2 mutations for development of FA-associated cancers. This specificity is illustrated by the distinct FA-associated BRCA2 mutations that appear to predispose to specific brain or haematological malignancies. For some populations, the number of FA-patients with biallelic BRCA2 disruption is smaller than that expected from the carrier frequency, and this implies that some pregnancies with biallelic BRCA2 mutations do not go to term. The apparent discrepancy between expected and observed incidence of BRCA2 mutation-associated FA in high-frequency carrier populations has important implications for the genetic counselling of couples with recurrent miscarriages from high-risk populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据