4.4 Review

A systematic review of the prevalence of pathogenic or likely pathogenic germline variants in individuals with FOXO1 fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma

期刊

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.30651

关键词

cancer predisposition syndrome; germline sequencing; rhabdomyosarcoma; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This systematic review found that some patients with FOXO1 fusion-positive ARMS have pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in cancer predisposing genes, but the causal relationship between CPS and FP-ARMS could not be determined. Only one patient was diagnosed with a cancer predisposition syndrome known to be associated with rhabdomyosarcoma. Clinicians cannot solely rely on FOXO1 fusion status to distinguish patients with/without CPS.
Several cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) are reported to predispose to rhabdomyosarcoma, most frequently in children with embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma. There are lingering questions over the role of CPS in individuals with alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma (ARMS), which are frequently driven by FOXO1 fusion oncoproteins. We conducted a systematic review to identify patients with FOXO1 fusion-positive ARMS (FP-ARMS) who underwent germline DNA sequencing. We estimated the prevalence of pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in cancer predisposing genes (CPGs) and of CPSs. We included 19 publications reporting on 191 patients with FP-ARMS. P/LP variants in CPGs were identified in 26/191 (13.6%) patients, nine (4.9%) of which were associated with a CPS diagnosis. Evidence for causal associations between CPSs and FP-ARMS could not be assessed with available data from this review. Only one patient was affected with a CPS known to predispose to rhabdomyosarcoma, Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Typical CPS associations with rhabdomyosarcoma are rare, but not nonexistent, in patients with FP-ARMS. FOXO1 fusion status, alone, is insufficient for clinicians to rely on to distinguish between patients with/without CPS.

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