4.5 Article

Increased frequency of germline BRCA2 mutations associates with prostate cancer metastasis in a racially diverse patient population

期刊

PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 406-410

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41391-018-0114-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. USUHS-CPDR fund [HU0001-10-2-0002]
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [ZIABC010453] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Germline mutations in BRCA2 have been linked to a higher risk of prostate cancer (PCa), and high frequency of BRCA1 and BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) gene alterations was recently reported in metastatic castration-resistant PCa specimens. Mutations in BRCA2 vary in racial and ethnic groups including African-American (AA) and Caucasian-American (CA) populations. Methods: BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes were sequenced (Ion AmpliSeq targeted sequencing) in archived blood DNA specimens in 1240 PCa patients, including 30% AA patients, in three different cohorts: localized early stage (T2) PCa (N = 935); advanced PCa (50% T3-4) (N = 189); and metastatic PCa (N = 116). The sequences were analyzed for known and novel mutations in BRCA1/2. Statistical analyses were performed to determine associations of the mutations with clinicopathological parameters. Results: BRCA2 mutations with known pathogenic annotation were significantly more prevalent in men with advanced and metastatic PCa (3.1%) compared to patients with an organ-confined disease (0.7%). AA patients carried more frequently BRCA1/2 variants of unknown significance (VUS) when compared to Caucasian Americans (4.6 vs. 1.6%, respectively). Significantly, pathogenic BRCA2 mutations in men with localized early stage PCa increased the risk of distant metastasis. Conclusions: Germline variants of unknown significance in BRCA1/2 are more frequent in AA than CA PCa patients; however, the prevalence of pathogenic mutations were similar across the races. Patients carrying BRCA2 pathogenic mutations are more likely to progress to metastasis.

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