Gastrointestinal relapse of multiple myeloma and sustained response to lenalidomide: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Gastrointestinal relapse in patients with multiple myeloma is very rare and, when reported, always associated with a poor prognosis.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We describe the case of a 71-year-old Caucasian man who presented with life-threatening hematemesis and melena due to a digestive relapse of his multiple myeloma. Despite the active hemorrhage, we initiated a third-line treatment with lenalidomide. The response was spectacular and long-lasting.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Clinicians must consider digestive tract involvement in myeloma patients presenting with a gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Furthermore, myeloma patients do benefit from novel oral drugs, even when they are critically ill.</p

Common variation in EMSY and risk of breast and ovarian cancer: a case-control study using HapMap tagging SNPs.

BACKGROUND: EMSY could be involved in low-level susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer. Gene amplification is seen in a proportion of breast and ovarian tumours and correlates with poor prognosis in breast cancer patients. Furthermore, the EMSY protein silences a transcription activation domain in BRCA2 exon 3. METHODS: We used a genetic association study design to determine if common genetic variation (frequency > or = 5%) in EMSY was associated with breast or ovarian cancer risk in the British population. Haplotype tagging single-nucleotide polymorphisms (htSNPs) were selected from the HapMap database and genotyped using Taqman in two large study sets of white British women (n [breast set] = 2343 cases and 2284 controls, n [ovarian set] = 864 cases and 864 controls). HapMap data might be insufficient to tag genetic variation in EMSY comprehensively. We therefore screened the gene promoter and coding sequences with denaturing high performance liquid chromatography in order to identify additional SNPs that are most likely to be functional. RESULTS: HapMap data on 22 SNPs show that 4 htSNPs tag 4 common haplotypes: rs2282611 (5'up t > g), rs4245443 (IVS7 g > a), rs2513511 (IVS16 a > g), rs2155220 (3'down c > t). We observed no association between any of the genotypes or associated haplotypes and breast or ovarian cancer risk. Seventeen out of the 18 remaining HapMap polymorphisms (94%) were well tagged by the 4 selected htSNPs (r2s > 0.8). Genotype frequencies for two further SNPs identified by screening and located near exon-intron boundaries, rs2508740 (IVS9 a > g) and rs11600501 (IVS10 c > t), were also similar in cases and controls. In order to simulate unidentified SNPs, we performed the leave-one-out cross-validation procedure on the HapMap data; over 95% of the common genetic variation was well represented by tagging polymorphisms. We are therefore likely to have tagged any common, functional variants present in our population. CONCLUSION: We found no association between common genetic variation in EMSY and risk of breast or ovarian cancer in two large study sets of white British women

Common ERBB2 polymorphisms and risk of breast cancer in a white British population: a case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: About two-thirds of the excess familial risk associated with breast cancer is still unaccounted for and may be explained by multiple weakly predisposing alleles. A gene thought to be involved in low-level predisposition to the disease is ERBB2 (HER2). This gene is involved in cell division, differentiation, and apoptosis and is frequently amplified in breast tumours. Its amplification correlates with poor prognosis. Moreover, the coding polymorphism I655V has previously been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. METHODS: We aimed to determine if common polymorphisms (frequency >or= 5%) in ERBB2 were associated with breast cancer risk in a white British population. Five single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected for study: SNP 1 near the promoter, SNP 2 in intron 1, SNP 3 in intron 4, SNP 4 in exon 17 (I655V), and SNP 5 in exon 27 (A1170P). We tested their association with breast cancer in a large case-control study (n = 2192 cases and 2257 controls). RESULTS: There were no differences in genotype frequencies between cases and controls for any of the SNPs examined. To investigate the possibility that a common polymorphism not included in our study might be involved in breast cancer predisposition, we also constructed multilocus haplotypes. Our set of SNPs generated all existing (n = 6) common haplotypes and no differences were seen in haplotype frequencies between cases and controls (P = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: In our population, common ERBB2 polymorphisms are not involved in predisposition to breast cancer

Cancer risk and tumour spectrum in 172 patients with a germline SUFU pathogenic variation : a collaborative study of the SIOPE Host Genome Working Group

Background Little is known about risks associated with germline SUFU pathogenic variants (PVs) known as a cancer predisposition syndrome. Methods To study tumour risks, we have analysed data of a large cohort of 45 unpublished patients with a germline SUFU PV completed with 127 previously published patients. To reduce the ascertainment bias due to index patient selection, the risk of tumours was evaluated in relatives with SUFU PV (89 patients) using the Nelson-Aalen estimator. Results Overall, 117/172 (68%) SUFU PV carriers developed at least one tumour: medulloblastoma (MB) (86 patients), basal cell carcinoma (BCC) (25 patients), meningioma (20 patients) and gonadal tumours (11 patients). Thirty-three of them (28%) had multiple tumours. Median age at diagnosis of MB, gonadal tumour, first BCC and first meningioma were 1.5, 14, 40 and 44 years, respectively. Follow-up data were available for 160 patients (137 remained alive and 23 died). The cumulative incidence of tumours in relatives was 14.4% (95% CI 6.8 to 21.4), 18.2% (95% CI 9.7 to 25.9) and 44.1% (95% CI 29.7 to 55.5) at the age of 5, 20 and 50 years, respectively. The cumulative risk of an MB, gonadal tumour, BCC and meningioma at age 50 years was: 13.3% (95% CI 6 to 20.1), 4.6% (95% CI 0 to 9.7), 28.5% (95% CI 13.4 to 40.9) and 5.2% (95% CI 0 to 12), respectively. Sixty-four different PVs were reported across the entire SUFU gene and inherited in 73% of cases in which inheritance could be evaluated. Conclusion Germline SUFU PV carriers have a life-long increased risk of tumours with a spectrum dominated by MB before the age of 5, gonadal tumours during adolescence and BCC and meningioma in adulthood, justifying fine-tuned surveillance programmes.Peer reviewe

Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: updated clinical guidelines with an emphasis on germline CDH1 mutation carriers.

Germline CDH1 mutations confer a high lifetime risk of developing diffuse gastric (DGC) and lobular breast cancer (LBC). A multidisciplinary workshop was organised to discuss genetic testing, surgery, surveillance strategies, pathology reporting and the patient's perspective on multiple aspects, including diet post gastrectomy. The updated guidelines include revised CDH1 testing criteria (taking into account first-degree and second-degree relatives): (1) families with two or more patients with gastric cancer at any age, one confirmed DGC; (2) individuals with DGC before the age of 40 and (3) families with diagnoses of both DGC and LBC (one diagnosis before the age of 50). Additionally, CDH1 testing could be considered in patients with bilateral or familial LBC before the age of 50, patients with DGC and cleft lip/palate, and those with precursor lesions for signet ring cell carcinoma. Given the high mortality associated with invasive disease, prophylactic total gastrectomy at a centre of expertise is advised for individuals with pathogenic CDH1 mutations. Breast cancer surveillance with annual breast MRI starting at age 30 for women with a CDH1 mutation is recommended. Standardised endoscopic surveillance in experienced centres is recommended for those opting not to have gastrectomy at the current time, those with CDH1 variants of uncertain significance and those that fulfil hereditary DGC criteria without germline CDH1 mutations. Expert histopathological confirmation of (early) signet ring cell carcinoma is recommended. The impact of gastrectomy and mastectomy should not be underestimated; these can have severe consequences on a psychological, physiological and metabolic level. Nutritional problems should be carefully monitored

Overcoming the challenges associated with universal screening for Lynch syndrome in colorectal and endometrial cancer

International audienc

Les trois temps de la prise en charge oncogénétique : la consultation, l’analyse en laboratoire et le suivi personnalisé

International audienceIt is paramount to identify patients whose cancer is associated with genetic susceptibility to the disease, since their long-term management depends on it. Anatomical and molecular pathologists play a key role in the process. Indeed, their diagnosis supports or even sometimes warrants germline genetic testing. For example, a colorectal cancer with mismatch repair protein expression loss suggests Lynch syndrome, while a rare type of renal cell carcinoma with fumarate hydratase expression loss is highly evocative of hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell carcinoma syndrome. Similarly, the presence of the T790M EGFR variant before treatment in a non-small cell lung carcinoma warrants further testing as the variant is likely of germline origin. Patients with suspected genetic susceptibility to cancer are referred to the nearest clinical cancer genetics clinic. The cancer geneticist, assisted by a genetic counselor, then collects detailed personal and familial information, sometimes feeds them into bioinformatics tools or clinico-pathological scores, decides whether germline genetic analysis is justified, determines which genes should be analysed, and prescribes testing. Germline testing is carried out on a blood sample by expert laboratories using next generation sequencing on panels of cancer susceptibility genes. The cancer geneticists then returns the result to the patient. When a pathogenic variant is identified, the patient’s management ismodified, with recommendations ranging from intensified surveillance to risk-reducing surgery. Treatment is sometimes adapted to the pathogenic variant. In addition, relatives can undergo genetic testing, should they wish to know whether they carry the familial variant. In the near future, we expect clinical cancer genetics to move towards strengthened partnerships with molecular pathologists and medical oncologists. Somatic genetic analyses are now routine, at least in metastatic cancer, and a proportion of the tumoral variants identified are actually of germline origin. As for the oncologists, the development of mainstreaming programs where they are allowed to prescribe germline testing under the supervision of a cancer genetics team is unavoidable.Les patients dont le cancer est associé à une prédisposition génétique doivent être identifiés, puisque leur prise en charge à long terme en dépend. Les anatomopathologistes jouent un rôle clé dans l’initiation de cette démarche. En effet, un diagnostic précis oriente les investigations oncogénétiques, voire les justifie s’il s’agit par exemple d’un cancer colorectal avec perte d’expression de protéines codées par les gènes de mésappariements de l’ADN ou d’un type rare de cancer du rein perdant l’expression de la fumarate hydratase. Les analyses génétiques tumorales représentent aussi une porte d’entrée pour l’Oncogénétique, par exemple cancer bronchopulmonaire avec variant tumoral EGFR T790M pré-traitement. En cas de suspicion de prédisposition génétique, le patient est adressé en consultation d’Oncogénétique. Le médecin accompagné d’un conseiller en génétique y collecte les informations personnelles et familiales, les intègre à un processus décisionnel impliquant des outils bioinformatiques et des scores clinico- pathologiques, et prescrit les analyses constitutionnelles. Le laboratoire d’Oncogénétique réalise ensuite l’analyse sous forme de panel de gènes avec des machines de séquençage haut débit. Le résultat est rendu quelques semaines plus tard par l’Oncogénéticien. L’observation d’un variant pathogène résulte en des recommandations de prise en charge à long terme, dépistage et chirurgie de réduction de risque. Les avancées de la médecine permettent aussi dorénavant d’adapter parfois les traitements au résultat. En outre, l’identification d’un variant pathogène permet ensuite aux apparentés de bénéficier de tests génétiques. L’évolution à court terme de l’Oncogénétique se caractérisera par un partenariat renforcé avec les anatomopathologistes et pathologistes moléculaires, puisque la généralisation des analyses génétiques tumorales à visée thérapeutique révèlera de manière incidentale des variants pathogènes constitutionnels. Par ailleurs la mise en place de circuits de « mainstreaming » avec les oncologues, dans lesquels ces derniers prescrivent des analyses constitutionnelles dans un cadre précis et sous la supervision d’un Oncogénéticien, est inéluctable

Anticoagulation orale et pharmacogénétique : perspectives pour la pratique clinique

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes encoding cytochrome P450 enzyme 2C9 (CYP2C9) and Vitamin K epoxide reductase subunit I (VKORC1) make a significant contribution to the inter-individual variability in the maintenance dose of vitamin K antagonists (warfarin, acenocoumarol, phenprocoumon). Doses requirements in CYP2C9*2 and CYP2C9*3 heterozygotes are reduced by 8-16% and 20-36%, respectively. SNP g-1639a in VKORC1 is also associated with vitamin K antagonists dosage since heterozygotes ga and homozygotes aa require respectively 21-28% and 27-56% less warfarin or acenocoumarol than homozygotes gg. CYP2C9 and VKORC1 account for up to half the variability in vitamin K antagonists requirements and incorporating genotying data for these two genes into dosing algorithms could lead to a safer anticoagulation therapy

Common ERBB2 polymorphisms and risk of breast cancer in a white British population: a case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: About two-thirds of the excess familial risk associated with breast cancer is still unaccounted for and may be explained by multiple weakly predisposing alleles. A gene thought to be involved in low-level predisposition to the disease is ERBB2 (HER2). This gene is involved in cell division, differentiation, and apoptosis and is frequently amplified in breast tumours. Its amplification correlates with poor prognosis. Moreover, the coding polymorphism I655V has previously been associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. METHODS: We aimed to determine if common polymorphisms (frequency >or= 5%) in ERBB2 were associated with breast cancer risk in a white British population. Five single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were selected for study: SNP 1 near the promoter, SNP 2 in intron 1, SNP 3 in intron 4, SNP 4 in exon 17 (I655V), and SNP 5 in exon 27 (A1170P). We tested their association with breast cancer in a large case-control study (n = 2192 cases and 2257 controls). RESULTS: There were no differences in genotype frequencies between cases and controls for any of the SNPs examined. To investigate the possibility that a common polymorphism not included in our study might be involved in breast cancer predisposition, we also constructed multilocus haplotypes. Our set of SNPs generated all existing (n = 6) common haplotypes and no differences were seen in haplotype frequencies between cases and controls (P = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: In our population, common ERBB2 polymorphisms are not involved in predisposition to breast cancer