4.4 Article

Characterization and genotype-phenotype correlation of patients with Fanconi anemia in a multi-ethnic population

期刊

HAEMATOLOGICA
卷 105, 期 7, 页码 1825-1834

出版社

FERRATA STORTI FOUNDATION
DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2019.222877

关键词

-

资金

  1. Hayim association for children with cancer in Israel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fanconi anemia (FA), an inherited bone marrow failure (BMF) syndrome, caused by mutations in DNA repair genes, is characterized by congenital anomalies, aplastic anemia, high risk of malignancies and extreme sensitivity to alkylating agents. We aimed to study the clinical presentation, molecular diagnosis and genotype-phenotype correlation among patients with FA from the Israeli inherited BMF registry. Overall, 111 patients of Arab (57%) and Jewish (43%) descent were followed for a median of 15 years (range: 0.1-49); 63% were offspring of consanguineous parents. One-hundred patients (90%) had at least one congenital anomaly; over 80% of the patients developed bone marrow failure; 53% underwent hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation; 33% of the patients developed cancer; no significant association was found between hematopoietic stem-cell transplant and solid tumor development. Nearly 95% of the patients tested had confirmed mutations in the Fanconi genes FANCA (67%), FANCC (13%), FANCG (14%), FANCJ (3%) and FANCD1 (2%), including twenty novel mutations. Patients with FANCA mutations developed cancer at a significantly older age compared to patients with mutations in other Fanconi genes (mean 18.5 and 5.2 years, respectively, P=0.001); however, the overall survival did not depend on the causative gene. We hereby describe a large national cohort of patients with FA, the vast majority genetically diagnosed. Our results suggest an older age for cancer development in patients with FANCA mutations and no increased incidence of solid tumors following hematopoietic stem-cell transplant. Further studies are needed to guide individual treatment and follow-up programs.

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