Many Geneticists broadly divide genetics practice into rare conditions and genetic forms of cancer. In this issue we present a selection of papers covering a Spectrum of papers relevant to cancer genetics. Bon and colleagues under took a qualitative interview study of 21 Adolescents who had had genome sequencing for cancer predisposition [1]. These young people viewed genome sequencing positively but felt that they needed accessible information resources to be involved in decision-making and also that once they reached adulthood they should be reconsented before re-analysis of the genomic data occurred. Lynch syndrome is due to pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes and is associated with an increased risk of several cancers, most especially colorectal and endometrial. In this issue, a Norwegian group presents two families with clinical Lynch syndrome and immuno histological evidence of loss of mismatch repair proteins but no mismatch Gene variants on exome sequencing [2]. They used optical genome mapping along with long read sequencing to identify a small insertion in the MSH2 gene. In a Danish study, whole genome sequencing of undiagnosed colonic polyp families produced a meaningful diagnostic uplift [3]. This suggests that these technologies may be clinically useful to detect cryptic variants in these cancer predisposition genes. There is evidence to suggest that a very high proportion perhaps a size 95% of the syndrome patients are not diagnosed in the UK National Health Service. In 2017 guidelines reproduced suggesting that all clerical cancer should be assessed from mismatch repair deficiency. McRonald et al report the English diagnostic pathway for the syndrome and identify a very significant gap where only a minority of colorectal tumours are being screened for mismatch period deficiency [4]. Öfverholm and colleagues report a study in which clinicians by directly to relatives at risk of inheriting a cancer predisposition Gene [5]. Family views on the acceptability of this approach were somewhat mixed. McDevitt reports EMQN guidelines for best practice in genomic testing for breast and ovarian cancer [6].
Of course in this issue we also have important work on rare genetic conditions. Harms and colleagues report an ultra rare neural developmental condition was overgrowth of the gums possibly due to dysfunction of the endolysosomal system [7]. Hadar report variants in THBS2 as a cause of a medical condition resembling Ehlers-Danlos syndrome [8]. Human and mouse model evidence is presented in support of this novel disease-gene association. Exome and genome sequencing detection of single nucleotide variants is crucial for rare condition diagnosis. Detection of short tandem repeats using ExpansionHunter analysis of exome sequencing is reported in this issue to give a small diagnostic uplift [9]. Intellectual disability is a common medical condition within the umbrella of intellectual disability there are many hundreds of individually rare monogenic conditions. Urpa and colleagues report in a Finnish population that both rare and common genomic variants contribute to intellectual disability [10]. There may be differences in the pattern of genomic causation for mild and severe intellectual disability.
It is crucial to expand what is known about the phenotype of rare conditions to inform clinical management. Aqueduct stenosis is an unusual cause of hydrocephalus, only around 10 genes known to cause this condition. In this issue recessive variants in LIG4 are reported as a cause of prenatal hydrocephalus, and the associated neuropathological changes are described [11].
Exome or genome sequencing will identify many potential causal genetic variants in an individual. But the clinical significance of these may not be known at the time of initial assessment. Best practice is considered to be re-analysis of the initial data for undiagnosed patients cipro months or years later. Whether this should be done manually or in some automatic form has not been defined. An Australian study interviewed genetic staff to ascertain their views on how workflows should be established and what the practical challenges are to exome and genome reinterpretation [12]. In this issue there was also a scoping review of the Ethical legal and social implications of genomic test re-analysis. Several themes were identified including what professional is responsible for the analysis, consent and financial constraints [13]. Malakar et al Report a study of Australian health professionals which identifies that they feel that the patients should own their genomic data [14]. The implications for genomic data re analysis could be interpreted as being that the re- analysis procedure needs to be initiated by patients.
References
Bon SBB, Wouters RHP, Bakhuizen JJ, Jongmans MCJ, Van Den Heuvel-Eibrink MM, Grootenhuis MA. Experiences of pediatric cancer patients (age 12–18 years) with extensive germline sequencing for cancer predisposition: a qualitative study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01565-3.
Bjørnstad PM, Aaløkken R, Åsheim J, Sundaram AYM, Felde CN, Østby GH, et al. A 39 kb structural variant causing Lynch Syndrome detected by optical genome mapping and nanopore sequencing. Eur J Hum Genet. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-023-01494-7.
Karstensen JG, Hansen TO, Burisch J, Djursby M, Højen H, Madsen MB, et al. Re-evaluating the genotypes of patients with adenomatous polyposis of unknown etiology: a nationwide study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01585-z.
McRonald FE, Pethick J, Santaniello F, Shand B, Tyson A, Tulloch O, et al. Identification of people with Lynch syndrome from those presenting with colorectal cancer in England: baseline analysis of the diagnostic pathway. Eur J Hum Genet. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01550-w.
Öfverholm A, Karlsson P, Rosén A. The experience of receiving a letter from a cancer genetics clinic about risk for hereditary cancer. Eur J Hum Genet. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01551-9.
McDevitt T, Durkie M, Arnold N, Burghel GJ, Butler S, Claes KBM, et al. EMQN best practice guidelines for genetic testing in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Eur J Hum Genet. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-023-01507-5.
Harms FL, Rexach JE, Efthymiou S, Aynekin B, Per H, Güleç A, et al. Loss of TBC1D2B causes a progressive neurological disorder with gingival overgrowth. Eur J Hum Genet. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01563-5.
Hadar N, Porgador O, Cohen I, Levi H, Dolgin V, Yogev Y, et al. Heterozygous THBS2 pathogenic variant causes Ehlers–Danlos syndrome with prominent vascular features in humans and mice. Eur J Hum Genet. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01559-1.
Yoon JG, Lee S, Cho J, Kim N, Kim S, Kim MJ, et al. Diagnostic uplift through the implementation of short tandem repeat analysis using exome sequencing. Eur J Hum Genet. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01542-w.
Urpa L, Kurki MI, Rahikkala E, Hämäläinen E, Salomaa V, Suvisaari J, et al. Evidence for the additivity of rare and common variant burden throughout the spectrum of intellectual disability. Eur J Hum Genet. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01581-3.
Nicolle R, Boutaud L, Loeuillet L, Talhi N, Grotto S, Bourgon N, et al. Expanding the phenotypic spectrum of LIG4 pathogenic variations: neuro-histopathological description of 4 fetuses with stenosis of the aqueduct. Eur J Hum Genet. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01558-2.
Fehlberg Z, Stark Z, Best S. Reanalysis of genomic data, how do we do it now and what if we automate it? A qualitative study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-023-01532-4.
Van Der Geest MA, Maeckelberghe ELM, Van Gijn ME, Lucassen AM, Swertz MA, Van Langen IM, et al. Systematic reanalysis of genomic data by diagnostic laboratories: a scoping review of ethical, economic, legal and (psycho)social implications. Eur J Hum Genet. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-023-01529-z.
Malakar Y, Lacey J, Twine NA, Mccrea R, Bauer DC. Balancing the safeguarding of privacy and data sharing: perceptions of genomic professionals on patient genomic data ownership in Australia. Eur J Hum Genet. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01273-w.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AM conceived and wrote this article.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McNeill, A. Novel insights into cancer predisposition genes. Eur J Hum Genet 32, 469–470 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01620-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-024-01620-z