Identification, genetic testing, and management of hereditary melanoma

Several distinct melanoma syndromes have been defined, and genetic tests are available for the associated causative genes. Guidelines for melanoma genetic testing have been published as an informal \u201crule of twos and threes,\u201d but these guidelines apply to CDKN2A testing and are not intended for the more recently described non-CDKN2A melanoma syndromes. In order to develop an approach for the full spectrum of hereditary melanoma patients, we have separated melanoma syndromes into two types: \u201cmelanoma dominant\u201d and \u201cmelanoma subordinate.\u201d Syndromes in which melanoma is a predominant cancer type are considered melanoma dominant, although other cancers, such as mesothelioma or pancreatic cancers, may also be observed. These syndromes are associated with defects in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1, MITF, and POT1. Melanoma-subordinate syndromes have an increased but lower risk of melanoma than that of other cancer(s) seen in the syndrome, such as breast and ovarian cancer or Cowden syndrome. Many of these melanoma-subordinate syndromes are associated with well-established predisposition genes (e.g., BRCA1/2, PTEN). It is likely that these predisposition genes are responsible for the increased susceptibility to melanoma as well but with lower penetrance than that observed for the dominant cancer(s) in those syndromes. In this review, we describe our extension of the \u201crule of twos and threes\u201d for melanoma genetic testing. This algorithm incorporates an understanding of the spectrum of cancers and genes seen in association with melanoma to create a more comprehensive and tailored approach to genetic testing

Point Mutations in Exon 1B of APC Reveal Gastric Adenocarcinoma and Proximal Polyposis of the Stomach as a Familial Adenomatous Polyposis Variant

International audienceGastric adenocarcinoma and proximal polyposis of the stomach (GAPPS) is an autosomal-dominant cancer-predisposition syndrome with a significant risk of gastric, but not colorectal, adenocarcinoma. We mapped the gene to 5q22 and found loss of the wild-type allele on 5q in fundic gland polyps from affected individuals. Whole-exome and -genome sequencing failed to find causal mutations but, through Sanger sequencing, we identified point mutations in APC promoter 1B that co-segregated with disease in all six families. The mutations reduced binding of the YY1 transcription factor and impaired activity of the APC promoter 1B in luciferase assays. Analysis of blood and saliva from carriers showed allelic imbalance of APC, suggesting that these mutations lead to decreased allele-specific expression in vivo. Similar mutations in APC promoter 1B occur in rare families with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Promoter 1A is methylated in GAPPS and sporadic FGPs and in normal stomach, which suggests that 1B transcripts are more important than 1A in gastric mucosa. This might explain why all known GAPPS-affected families carry promoter 1B point mutations but only rare FAP-affected families carry similar mutations, the colonic cells usually being protected by the expression of the 1A isoform. Gastric polyposis and cancer have been previously described in some FAP-affected individuals with large deletions around promoter 1B. Our finding that GAPPS is caused by point mutations in the same promoter suggests that families with mutations affecting the promoter 1B are at risk of gastric adenocarcinoma, regardless of whether or not colorectal polyps are present