4.5 Article

Phenotype comparison of MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers in a cohort of 1,914 individuals undergoing clinical genetic testing in the United States

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 2044-2051

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0301

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [K24 CA113433, K07 CA120448-02]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims: Lynch syndrome is caused by germ-line mismatch repair gene mutations. We examined the phenotypic differences between MLH1 and MSH2 gene mutation carriers and whether mutation type (point versus large rearrangement) affected phenotypic expression. Methods: This is a cross-sectional prevalence study of 1,914 unrelated probands undergoing clinical genetic testing for MLH1 and MSH2 mutations at a commercial laboratory. Results: Fifteen percent (285 of 1,914) of subjects had pathogenic mutations (112 MLH1, 173 MSH2). MLH1 carriers had a higher prevalence of colorectal cancer (79% versus 69%, P = 0.08) and younger mean age at diagnosis (42.2 versus 44.8 years, P = 0.03) than MSH2 carriers. Forty-one percent of female carriers had endometrial cancer and prevalence was similar in both groups. Other cancers were more frequent in MSH2 carriers (24% versus 9%, P = 0.001) and their families (P < 0.001). Multivariable analyses confirmed these associations. Of the 1,016 subjects who underwent Southern blot analysis, 42 had large rearrangements (7 MLH1, 35 MSH2). There were no phenotypic differences between carriers with large rearrangements and point mutations. Conclusions: In this large study of mismatch repair gene mutation carriers from the United States, MLH1 carriers had more colorectal cancer than MSH2 carriers whereas endometrial cancer prevalence was similar. Large genomic rearrangements were more frequent in the MSH2 gene. MSH2 carriers and their relatives have more extra-colonic nonendometrial Lynch syndrome-associated cancers and may benefit from additional screening.

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