4.5 Article

A multicenter study assessing the prevalence of germline genetic alterations in Chinese gastric-cancer patients

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY REPORT
卷 9, 期 4, 页码 339-349

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gastro/goab020

关键词

familial gastric cancer; next-generation sequencing; germline mutation; cancer-predisposition gene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reveals that approximately one in four Chinese GC patients may harbor pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline alterations, indicating a unique genetic background for GC among Chinese patients.
Background Approximately 10% of patients with gastric cancer (GC) have a genetic predisposition toward the disease. However, there is scant knowledge regarding germline mutations in predisposing genes in the Chinese GC population. This study aimed to determine the spectrum and distribution of predisposing gene mutations among Chinese GC patients known to have hereditary high-risk factors for cancer. Methods A total of 40 GC patients from 40 families were recruited from seven medical institutions in China. Next-generation sequencing was performed on 171 genes associated with cancer predisposition. For probands carrying pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants, Sanger sequencing was applied to validate the variants in the probands as well as their relatives. Results According to sequencing results, 25.0% (10/40) of the patients carried a combined total of 10 pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants involving nine different genes: CDH1 (n=1), MLH1 (n=1), MSH2 (n=1), CHEK2 (n=1), BLM (n=1), EXT2 (n=1), PALB2 (n=1), ERCC2 (n=1), and SPINK1 (n=2). In addition, 129 variants of uncertain significance were identified in 27 patients. Conclusions This study indicates that approximately one in every four Chinese GC patients with hereditary high risk factors may harbor pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline alterations in cancer-susceptibility genes. The results further indicate a unique genetic background for GC among Chinese patients.

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