4.4 Article

The prevalence of germline DICER1 pathogenic variation in cancer populations

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.555

关键词

cancer population; DICER1; DICER1 syndrome; prevalence estimate; TARGET; TCGA

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics of the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD [2R01CA143167-07]
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [ZIACP010144] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The DICER1 syndrome is an autosomal dominant tumor-predisposition disorder associated with pleuropulmonary blastoma, a rare pediatric lung cancer. Somatic missense variation in hotspot codons in the RNaseIIIb domain (E1705, D1709, G1809, D1810, E1813) is observed in DICER1-associated tumors. Previously, we found the prevalence of germline pathogenic DICER1 variation in the general population is 1:10,600. In this study, we investigated the prevalence of pathogenic DICER1 germline variation in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA; 32 adult cancer types; 9,173 exomes) and the Therapeutically Applicable Research to Generate Effective Treatment (TARGET; two pediatric cancer types; 175 exomes) cohorts. Methods All datasets were annotated and binned into four categories: pathogenic, likely pathogenic, variant of unknown significance, or likely benign. Results The prevalence of DICER1 pathogenic variants was 1:4,600 in TCGA. A single participant with a uterine corpus endometrial carcinoma harbored two pathogenic germline DICER1 (hotspot and splice-donor) variants, and a single participant with a rectal adenocarcinoma harbored a germline DICER1 stop-gained variant. In the smaller TARGET dataset, we observed no pathogenic germline variants. Conclusion This is the largest comprehensive analysis of DICER1 pathogenic variation in adult and pediatric cancer populations using publicly available data. The observation of germline DICER1 variation with uterine corpus endometrial carcinoma merits additional investigation.

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

4.4
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