4.4 Article

Frequency and type of cancers in myotonic dystrophy: A retrospective cross-sectional study

期刊

MUSCLE & NERVE
卷 68, 期 2, 页码 142-148

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/mus.27801

关键词

frequency; guidelines; muscular dystrophy; myotonic dystrophy; phenotype

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to compare the frequency and types of cancer in patients with muscular dystrophy. The results showed that DM patients had an increased risk of cancer, with DM1 patients having an increased risk of ovarian cancer and DM2 patients having an increased risk of non-melanoma skin, urological, and hematological cancers.
Introduction/AimsMyotonic dystrophies (DMs) are autosomal dominant diseases in which expression of a mutant expanded repeat mRNA leads to abnormal splicing of downstream effector genes thought to be responsible for their multisystem involvement. Cancer risk and cancer-related deaths are increased in DM patients relative to the general population. We aimed at determining the frequency and type of cancers in both DM1 and DM2 vs a non-DM muscular dystrophy cohort. MethodsA retrospective, cross-sectional study was carried out on patients with genetically confirmed DM1, DM2, facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD), and oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy (OPMD) at our institutions from 2000 to 2020. ResultsOne hundred eighty-five DM1, 67 DM2, 187 FSHD, and 109 OPMD patients were included. Relative to non-DM, DM patients had an increased cancer risk that was independent of age and sex. Specifically, an increased risk of sex-related (ovarian) and non-sex-related (non-melanoma skin, urological, and hematological) cancers was observed in DM1 and DM2, respectively. The length of CTG repeat expansion was not associated with cancer occurrence in the DM1 group. DiscussionIn addition to current consensus-based care recommendations, our findings prompt consideration of screening for skin, urological, and hematological cancers in DM2 patients, and screening of ovarian malignancies in DM1 female 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

4.4
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