Sharon E Plon | PubMed Health

PubMed2026

Distinct mutational landscapes for germline and somatic cancer variants in forty tumor suppressor genes.

Germline and somatic cancer variants in tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) share loss-of-function mechanisms, but studies of a few genes (DICER1 and CEBPA) have demonstrated differences in variant consequence and location. To systematically assess whether TSGs display distinct mutational patterns, we leveraged large public genetic databases and compared 32,941 high-quality pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) germline variants in ClinVar, with 12,907 oncogenic/likely oncogenic (O/LO) somatic tumor variants from cBioPortal across 40 TSGs. Only 3,863 (9.2%) variants were shared. Eighteen TSGs showed significantly different distributions of variant occurrences by molecular consequence, replicated with non-overlapping somatic data from the COSMIC database (chi-squared tests, false discovery rate = 5%). DICER1, TP53, and SMAD4 displayed excess somatic missense events, while nine TSGs (e.g., RB1 and APC) contained excess somatic stop-gain events throughout the coding sequence. Analysis by tumor type revealed excess stop-gain events in tissues exposed to environmental mutagens with corresponding mutation signatures. For several TSGs (WT1), germline variants predispose to tumors (Wilms' tumor) distinct from the majority source of somatic data (myeloid leukemia). Germline and somatic events are also distributed unevenly across cDNA locations, with 103 regions of preferential clustering in 39 TSGs (78 somatic and 25 germline). Twenty somatic clusters contained recurring frameshifts in homopolymer runs, many in tumors with microsatellite instability. Germline clusters contain more germline-exclusive variants, some driving non-cancer phenotypes reflecting genetic pleiotropy. Altogether, germline and somatic variants of TSGs represent unique sets with substantially different patterns shaped by selection pressures from gene-specific and somatic mutational mechanisms. Characterizing these distinctions enables more accurate clinical interpretation of TSG variants.

Humans↗

PubMed2024

Adult-Onset Cancer Predisposition Syndromes in Children and Adolescents-To Test or not to Test?

With the increasing use of comprehensive germline genetic testing of children and adolescents with cancer, it has become evident that pathogenic variants (PV) in adult-onset cancer predisposition genes (aoCPG) underlying adult-onset cancer predisposition syndromes, such as Lynch syndrome or hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, are enriched and reported in 1% to 2% of children and adolescents with cancer. However, the causal relationship between PVs in aoCPGs and childhood cancer is still under investigation. The best-studied examples include heterozygous PVs in mismatch repair genes associated with Lynch syndrome in children with mismatch repair deficient high-grade glioma, heterozygous PVs in BARD1 in childhood neuroblastoma, and heterozygous PVs in BRCA2 in children with rhabdomyosarcoma. The low penetrance for pediatric cancers is considered to result from a combination of the low baseline risk of cancer in childhood and the report of only a modest relative risk of disease in childhood. Therefore, we do not advise that healthy children empirically be tested for PVs in an aoCPG before adulthood outside a research study. However, germline panel testing is increasingly being performed in children and adolescents with cancer, and exome and genome sequencing may be offered more commonly in this population in the future. The precise pediatric cancer risks and spectra associated with PVs in aoCPGs, underlying cellular mechanisms and somatic mutational signatures, as well as treatment response, second neoplasm risks, and psycho-oncological aspects require further research.

Adolescent↗