Search PubMedSearch

Biomedical subjects

Douglas F Easton

Publications and source records attributed to Douglas F Easton.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Shared inheritance reveals landscape of somatic and germline cancer risk in TP53.

Pathogenic variants in TP53, the key tumor suppressor gene underlying Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS), are among the best-established causes of inherited cancer predisposition. However, large-scale sequencing has revealed that many apparently pathogenic TP53 variants detected in blood are the result of somatic clonal expansions, complicating risk interpretation. Using blood-derived whole-exome data from 469,391 UK Biobank participants, we combined the variant allele fraction (VAF) with haplotype-sharing analysis to distinguish germline and somatic TP53 variants. Germline variants were concentrated at sites linked to partial loss of p53 function and lower disease penetrance, whereas classic LFS alleles appeared to be predominantly somatically acquired. Classic LFS alleles at high VAF conferred markedly increased risk of hematological malignancy but not solid tumors, indicating an important contribution from large TP53-mutant clonal expansions. The prevalence of somatic clonal expansion also correlated with missense variant pathogenicity, suggesting that somatic activity provides an informative in vivo proxy for functional impact. These results provide new insights into TP53-associated cancer risk at the population level, demonstrate that somatic rather than germline risk predominates in middle-aged healthy adults, and provide a scalable framework for variant classification in large-scale population genomics.

Humans

Psychological and emotional impacts of communicating breast cancer risk using multifactorial assessment with polygenic risk score: Findings from PERSPECTIVE I&I.

PURPOSE: To examine the psychological and emotional outcomes of personalized breast cancer risk communication up to 1 year after disclosure in a risk-stratified breast screening preimplementation study (Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation). METHODS: Among 3753 females aged 40 to 69, unaffected by breast cancer, with a prior mammogram, and who underwent multifactorial risk assessment to estimate their 10-year breast cancer risk, 2734 completed follow-up questionnaires up to 1 year after risk communication: 78.5% were at average risk, 16.5% at higher than average risk, and 5.0% at high risk. The impact of risk communication on breast cancer worry and psychological distress and factors associated with decisional regret were examined. RESULTS: Breast cancer worry and psychological distress scores remained low after risk communication and at 1 year follow-up. Up to 1 year after disclosure, small significant differences in breast cancer worry were observed between risk levels. Decisional regret was very low 1 year after risk communication. Lower levels of decisional regret were significantly associated with some factors, including higher satisfaction with the information received. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that personalized breast cancer risk communication has low negative psychological and emotional effects and highlights the importance of the information received for implementing this approach at population level.

Humans