4.5 Review

Familial/inherited cancer syndrome: a focus on the highly consanguineous Arab population

期刊

NPJ GENOMIC MEDICINE
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41525-019-0110-y

关键词

-

资金

  1. King Fahad Medical City [IRF 17-17]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study of hereditary cancer, which accounts for similar to 10% of cancer cases worldwide is an important subfield of oncology. Our understanding of hereditary cancers has greatly advanced with recent advances in sequencing technology, but as with any genetic trait, gene frequencies of cancer-associated mutations vary across populations, and most studies that have located hereditary cancer genes have been conducted on European or Asian populations. There is an urgent need to trace hereditary cancer genes across the Arab world. Hereditary disease is particularly prevalent among members of consanguineous populations, and consanguineous marriages are particularly common in the Arab world. There are also cultural and educational idiosyncrasies that differentiate Arab populations from other more thoroughly studied groups with respect to cancer awareness and treatment. Therefore, a review of the literature on hereditary cancers in this understudied population was undertaken. We report that BRCA mutations are not as prevalent among Arab breast cancer patients as they are among other ethnic groups, and therefore, other genes may play a more important role. A wide variety of germline inherited mutations that are associated with cancer are discussed, with particular attention to breast, ovarian, colorectal, prostate, and brain cancers. Finally, we describe the state of the profession of familial cancer genetic counselling in the Arab world, and the clinics and societies dedicated to its advances. We describe the complexities of genetic counselling that are specific to the Arab world. Understanding hereditary cancer is heavily dependent on understanding population-specific variations in cancer-associated gene frequencies.

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