Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Cancer genetics”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 649 records · Page 36Linked to original sources

Uniparental paternal disomy in a genetic cancer-predisposing syndrome.

The 11p15.5 region of human chromosome 11 seems to contain a locus or loci involved in congenital overgrowth anomalies as well as in the genesis of many tumours associated with the Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS). Given the unusual differential parental allele involvement in the different aetiological forms of BWS and the loss of maternal alleles in associated tumours, we have now used 11p15.5 markers to determine the parental origin of chromosome 11 in eight sporadic cases of BWS. Probands in three informative families had uniparental paternal disomy for region 11p15.5. Further, an overall greatly increased frequency of homozygosity for several 11p15.5 markers in 21 sporadic BWS patients suggests that isodisomy probably accounts for an even higher proportion of BWS sporadic cases. This demonstrates that uniparental paternal disomy can be associated with a genetic cancer-predisposing syndrome.

Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome↗

The genetics of colorectal cancer.

Colon cancer is a common disease that can be sporadic, familial, or inherited. Recent advances have contributed to the understanding of the molecular basis of these various patterns of colon cancer. Germline genetic mutations are the basis of inherited colon cancer syndromes; an accumulation of somatic mutations in a cell is the basis of sporadic colon cancer; and, in Ashkenazi Jewish persons, a mutation that was previously thought to be a polymorphism may cause familial colon cancer. Mutations of three different classes of genes have been described in colon cancer etiology: oncogenes, suppressor genes, and mismatch repair genes. Knowledge of many of the specific mutations responsible for colon carcinogenesis allows an understanding of the phenotypic manifestations observed and forms the basis of genetic testing for inherited disease. Although genetic testing is possible and available, it is only an adjunct to the clinical management of persons at risk for colon cancer and patients with colon cancer. As a result of advances in the understanding of the molecular causes of colon cancer and the availability of colon cancer screening methods such as colonoscopy, it should be possible to prevent the vast majority of colon cancer in our society. Practicing clinicians should recognize the patterns of clinical colon cancer, understand its causes, and be able to use genetic testing and endoscopic screening for prevention.

Adenomatous Polyposis Coli↗

Medical genetics.

A landmark in cancer genetics in 1994 was the isolation of a gene for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility (BRCA1). The Human Genome Project has had a profound effect on our ability to perform early prenatal diagnosis of genetic disease.

Genetic Testing↗

Evaluating the genetic risk of breast cancer.

Progress genetics has endless implication for primary care and for people at risk for hereditary breast cancer. Nurse practitioners will be increasingly challenged to order and interpret genetic tests, provide genetic counseling, and assume responsibility for protecting patient privacy. Yet primary care practitioners may not be completely prepared to provide the necessary background information. This article provides guidelines for evaluating family history risk for inherited breast cancer risk. Also discussed are implications for presymptomatic testing of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes for adult-onset breast and ovarian cancer.

Breast Neoplasms↗

Primary liver cancer in genetic hemochromatosis: a clinical, pathological, and pathogenetic study of 54 cases.

BACKGROUND: Although liver cancer arises frequently in the course of genetic hemochromatosis (GH), it has not been previously studied in a large series of patients with well-defined GH. METHODS: The bioclinical and pathological data from 1 cholangiocarcinoma and 53 hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) complicating GH in 32 untreated and 22 de-ironed patients are reported. RESULTS: This study (1) adds three new well-documented cases of HCC in noncirrhotic but only fibrotic hemochromatotic liver, (2) shows the high prevalence (83%) of proliferative and often dysplastic (70%) iron-free foci in the nontumorous liver of untreated patients, and (3) emphasizes the significant increase of cirrhosis (81% vs. 28%) and of associated noniron-related risk factors, mainly chronic alcoholism (48% vs. 25%) and tobacco smoking (50% vs. 18%) in patients with HCC compared with matched hemochromatotic patients without HCC. CONCLUSIONS: These data (1) suggest that iron-free foci may be markers of an early stage of HCC in GH and (2) supply the basis for defining a cost-effective policy for the screening of HCC in GH patients.

Female↗

Genetic protocols review by Institutional Review Boards at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.

Absent a clear and enforceable national policy on cancer genetic testing and genetic research, the responsibility may currently be on institutional review boards to regulate those activities at their institutions through protocol approval or disapproval. The survey reported here was carried out to gain information on National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center policies governing institutional review board review of genetic protocols and the preparedness of institutional review boards to review genetic protocols. Thirty-five responses (63% response rate) were received, of which 30 were evaluable. Twenty-four responders reported that they believed that there is a need for research that may lead to improved review of genetic research and genetic testing protocols. Only 14 responders felt adequately informed of current and developing issues and legislation relative to genetic testing and research. Seven responders reported that their cancer centers require an institutional review board-approved protocol for genetic testing activities. Five responders reported that their cancer centers have a formal written policy that guides institutional review board review of genetic testing protocols. About half of the responders reported that their cancer centers have no formal written policy that guides institutional review board review of genetic research protocols. Only three responders reported that institutional review board members receive formal training to prepare them to evaluate all of the issues associated with genetic protocols. We conclude that greater effort needs to be made to establish uniform policy governing cancer genetic testing and genetic research and greater effort should be made to prepare institutional review boards formally for the review of genetic-related protocols.

Cancer Care Facilities↗

Genetics of cancer predisposition and progression.

The development of human cancer is a multistep process that entails a progressively more malignant phenotype through the evolution of cellular subsets with increasing numbers of genetic alterations. Here we review the molecular genetics of human cancer predisposition and progression and describe paradigmatic cancer types and cancer syndromes. We also briefly consider the future impact of molecular biology on cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Cell Transformation, Neoplastic↗

Aspirin suppresses the mutator phenotype associated with hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer by genetic selection.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are well-known cancer preventives, which have been largely attributed to their antiproliferative and apoptosis-inducing activities. In this study, we show that microsatellite instability (MSI) in colorectal cancer cells deficient for a subset of the human mismatch repair (MMR) genes (hMLH1, hMSH2, and hMSH6), is markedly reduced during exposure to aspirin or sulindac [or Clinoril, which is chemically related to indomethacin (Indocin)]. This effect was reversible, time and concentration dependent, and appeared independent of proliferation rate and cyclooxygenase function. In contrast, the MSI phenotype of a hPMS2-deficient endometrial cancer cell line was unaffected by aspirin/sulindac. We show that the MSI reduction in the susceptible MMR-deficient cells was confined to nonapoptotic cells, whereas apoptotic cells remained unstable and were eliminated from the growing population. These results suggest that aspirin/sulindac induces a genetic selection for microsatellite stability in a subset of MMR-deficient cells and may provide an effective prophylactic therapy for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer kindreds where alteration of the hMSH2 and hMLH1 genes are associated with the majority of cancer susceptibility cases.

Adaptor Proteins, Signal Transducing↗

Apoptosis in cancer.

In the last decade, basic cancer research has produced remarkable advances in our understanding of cancer biology and cancer genetics. Among the most important of these advances is the realization that apoptosis and the genes that control it have a profound effect on the malignant phenotype. For example, it is now clear that some oncogenic mutations disrupt apoptosis, leading to tumor initiation, progression or metastasis. Conversely, compelling evidence indicates that other oncogenic changes promote apoptosis, thereby producing selective pressure to override apoptosis during multistage carcinogenesis. Finally, it is now well documented that most cytotoxic anticancer agents induce apoptosis, raising the intriguing possibility that defects in apoptotic programs contribute to treatment failure. Because the same mutations that suppress apoptosis during tumor development also reduce treatment sensitivity, apoptosis provides a conceptual framework to link cancer genetics with cancer therapy. An intense research effort is uncovering the underlying mechanisms of apoptosis such that, in the next decade, one envisions that this information will produce new strategies to exploit apoptosis for therapeutic benefit.

Apoptosis↗

Heterogeneity of multiorgan metastases of human lung cancer cells genetically engineered to produce cytokines and reversal using chimeric monoclonal antibodies in natural killer cell-depleted severe combined immunodeficient mice.

Lung cancer is a major cause of cancer deaths, most of which can be attributed to distant multiorgan metastases. To examine the cellular and molecular mechanisms of lung cancer metastasis to distant organs, we have established novel models of human lung cancer (small cell and non-small cell lung cancer) metastasis in natural killer cell-depleted severe combined immunodeficient (SCID) mice. We investigated whether local production of the cytokines responsible for regulation of macrophage function at tumor growth sites affects the pattern of lung cancer metastasis in distant organs. Several lung cancer cell lines were genetically engineered to produce human macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), and their metastatic potentials were assessed. Interestingly, M-CSF gene transduction had an antimetastatic effect for the liver and lymph nodes, but not the kidneys. In contrast, MCP-1 gene-modified lung cancer cells and their parent cells had identical metastatic potentials. These findings indicate a possible role for cytokines and suggest that lung cancer has metastatic heterogeneity. Examining ways of controlling human lung cancer metastases, we investigated the antimetastatic effect of chimeric monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) against P-glycoprotein and ganglioside GM2 (MH162 and KM966, respectively). Both MAbs, when given on days 2 and 7, inhibited the development of distant metastases of lung cancer in a dose-dependent fashion. Combined use of anti-P-glycoprotein MAb with M-CSF or MCP-1 gene transduction caused complete inhibition of metastasis of H69/VP cells. The antimetastatic effect of these MAbs in vivo was mainly due to an antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity reaction mediated by mouse macrophages. These findings suggest that the mouse-human chimeric MAb in combination with cytokine gene transduction may be useful for the eradication of lung cancer metastases in humans.

ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily B, Mem↗

Does genetic counseling have any impact on management of breast cancer risk?

Despite there being an increasing literature on the impact of cancer genetic counseling on risk perception and mental health, there is a lack of data describing impact on risk management. Genetic counseling and testing for cancer predisposition genes aims to improve the future health of those at high risk through appropriate surveillance and screening. However, management of breast cancer risk in women with a family history of this disease is an area of controversy. Counseling services may recommend specific risk management options to women, who then rely on their local screening service to make provision. This study investigated the impact of genetic counseling on management of breast cancer risk in women attending Cancer Family Clinics. A total of 293 women attending four genetic clinics were enrolled. Rates of breast self-examination, clinical breast examination, mammography, biopsy, detected cancers, and other screenings were documented. Participants' perceived benefits and barriers to mammography were assessed along with cancer worry. Results show that rates of mammography, clinical breast examination, and breast self-examination were increased following clinic attendance (p < 0.001). Women in the under 35 age-group had limited access to screening. Rates for biopsy and detected cancers were low. Women reported positive attitudes to mammography, with few reported barriers. Contrary to previous studies, there was no evidence that anxiety about breast cancer impedes uptake of health surveillance methods. Genetic counseling had a positive impact on management of breast cancer risk. Whether this translates into future health gains remains to be established.

Adult↗

Cancer risk assessment: examining the family physician's role.

BACKGROUND: Cancer risk assessment begins in the primary care clinician's office. Essential components of that process include: 1) documentation of personal and family cancer information; 2) identification of families at increased risk for cancer; 3) modification of cancer screening recommendations according to degree of risk; 4) referral of high-risk individuals to cancer genetics clinics. The purpose of this study was to examine these 4 components of primary care cancer risk assessment using data abstracted from patient records at an academic family medicine center. METHODS: Ambulatory records of 734 patients were reviewed in their entirety for information relevant to cancer risk assessment. Detail of cancer information was categorized as comprehensive, adequate, or inadequate. Patient records were categorized as suggestive of average, moderate, or high genetic risk for cancer. For patients with a family history of colorectal cancer, modification of colon cancer screening to reflect degree of cancer risk was assessed. Finally, the frequency of cancer genetic referral in high-risk individuals was noted. RESULTS: The presence or absence of a family history of cancer was documented in 97.8% of records. There was insufficient information to adequately assess risk in 69.5% of charts. Detail of family cancer documentation was associated with personal history of cancer (P = .001), patient age (P = .001), and physician training status (P = .042), but not with patient or physician gender, duration of care, or completion of a genogram. For persons with a family history of colorectal cancer, compliance with cancer screening individualized to degree of risk was achieved in 50% of patients. Ten patients met criteria for moderate or high genetic risk for cancer. None had been offered cancer genetics consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all records documented the presence or absence of a family history of cancer. However, in those with a positive family history, the detail of information was insufficient to permit risk assessment in over two thirds of individuals; risk-stratified colon cancer screening was not achieved in half of the patients with a family history of colorectal cancer; individuals at moderate or high cancer risk were not identified as such; and those at high risk were not offered cancer genetics referral. In addition to collecting adequate family cancer information, family physicians need to adopt explicit risk assessment criteria to identify, and to optimally care for, those at increased genetic risk for cancer.

Humans↗

A general survey of genetics and cancer.

As the molecular details of cancer have begun to unfold, it has become apparent that the cellular genetic apparatus is defective in the malignant cell. Accordingly, we have attempted to review the prominent aspects of genetics research as it impinges on the problem of cancer. Although the field is immense, we have tried to cover four major areas: human genetics, molecular genetics, somatic cell genetics, and developmental genetics. Oncogenes are considered in detail in all of these areas, and a new map (42 entries) of oncogene positions on human chromosomes is presented.

Chromosome Banding↗

[Genetics and cancer: application to the breast].

Various gene systems are involved in events occurring during transformation of a normal cell into a cancer cell. By order of intervention, genes responsible for an increased individual susceptibility to cancer can be distinguished from actual cancer genes, followed by genes involved at other levels of carcinogenesis. 15 to 20% of patients with breast cancer have a first-degree relative affected by the same cancer, although an inherited predisposition to cancer is only established in 4 to 10% of cases. The genetic heterogeneity of familial forms of breast cancer make it difficult to identify susceptibility genes. At the present time, 3 regions of the genome have been implicated in the predisposition to breast cancer in women: the BRCA1 gene, the BRCA2 gene and the TP53 gene. All predisposition genes are able to transmit susceptibility due to a mutation or inherited microdeletion.

Breast Neoplasms↗

Assessment of cumulated genetic alterations in colorectal cancer.

Widespread genetic alterations are a common feature of most colorectal cancers. While specific recurrent alterations may reveal the involvement of a gene or set of genes in the biology of the disease, the cumulated genomic damage is likely to reflect the biological history of the neoplastic cells. Furthermore, the functional implications behind many of these genetic changes may show the evolutionary potential of the neoplastic cells. Different approaches, ranging from the gross determination of total nuclear DNA content to cytogenetic and molecular approaches, reveal different types of chromosomal and subchromosomal alterations and have been applied to measure generalized genomic damage in colorectal carcinomas. High levels of genomic damage usually appear associated with increased aggressiveness in colorectal cancer, and the use of different assessments of genomic damage as independent prognostic factors has been proposed. Therefore, appropriate definition of the extent of cumulated alterations and their functional consequences may be of interest in the understanding and management of cancer. The different methodologies and clues to the interpretation and integration of the results obtained with each technique are discussed in this review.

Animals↗

26th Lauriston S. Taylor Lecture: developing mechanistic data for incorporation into cancer and genetic risk assessments: old problems and new approaches.

The theme that runs through this 26th Taylor Lecture is the question of how can data on the mechanism of induction of genetic alterations by radiations and chemicals be used to support the development of risk estimates, particularly at low exposure levels. The premise is that chromosomal alterations are involved in the development of tumors and birth defects, and that data generated for genetic alterations can be interpreted in terms of these adverse health outcomes. The general conclusions are that chromosomal alterations can be induced by ionizing radiations by a single energy loss event in a target of the size of a DNA molecule and that aberrations generally result from misrepair or failure to repair the induced lesions (generally assumed to be double-strand breaks). Chromosomal alterations induced by chemicals are produced almost exclusively by replication errors on a damaged DNA template. Thus, cell cycle stage and DNA repair and replication fidelity will be influential on overall sensitivity to aberration induction. These same features are also important in considerations of genetic susceptibility-alterations in cell cycle control or DNA repair or replication fidelity can alter sensitivity. The differences in mechanism of induction of chromosomal aberrations by ionizing radiation and chemicals is most important when considering cells at risk and comparative sensitivities among species and cell types. Models of cancer induction have gradually evolved from initiation, promotion, and progression models to multistep genetic models to the most recent one of six acquired characteristics. This evolution has passed the level of concentration of research from single gene, single cell to multiple genes (pathways), and whole tissues. The latter areas of concentration are ideal for addressing with the new genomics, proteomics, and computational modeling approaches. The attention is still on the role of genetic alterations in cancer and hereditary effects and the mechanism of their formation--it is the approaches to address these that are changing.

Animals↗

Genetic testing for susceptibility to adult-onset cancer. The process and content of informed consent.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance on informed consent to clinicians offering cancer susceptibility testing. PARTICIPANTS: The Task Force on Informed Consent is part of the Cancer Genetics Studies Consortium (CGSC), whose members were recipients of National Institutes of Health grants to assess the implications of cancer susceptibility testing. The 10 task force members represent a range of relevant backgrounds, including various medical specialties, social science, genetic counseling, and consumer advocacy. EVIDENCE: The CGSC held 3 public meetings from 1994 to 1996. At its first meeting, the task force jointly established a list of topics. The cochairs (G.G. and J.R.B) then developed an outline and assigned each topic to an appropriate writer and reviewer. Writers summarized the literature on their topics and drafted recommendations, which were then revised by the reviewers. The cochairs compiled and edited the entire manuscript. All members were involved in writing this report. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The first draft was distributed to task force members, after which a meeting was held to discuss its content and organization. Consensus was reached by voting. A subsequent draft was presented to the entire CGSC at its third meeting, and comments were incorporated. CONCLUSIONS: The task force recommends that informed consent for cancer susceptibility testing be an ongoing process of education and counseling in which (1) providers elicit participant, family, and community values and disclose their own, (2) decision making is shared, (3) the style of information disclosure is individualized, and (4) specific content areas are discussed.

Adaptation, Psychological↗