Journal of medical genetics · 2024
Genetic findings in people with schwannomas who do not meet clinical diagnostic criteria for NF2-related schwannomatosis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Smith Miriam J, Perez-Becerril Cristina, van der Meer Mwee, Burghel George J, Waller Sarah J, Carney Megan, Bunstone Sancha, Fryer Katherine, Bowers Naomi L, Hartley Claire L, Smith Philip T, Rutherford Scott A, Freeman Simon R, Lloyd Simon K W, Pathmanaban Omar N, King Andrew Thomas, Halliday Dorothy, Duff Chris, Evans D Gareth
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Most schwannomas are isolated tumours occurring in otherwise healthy people. However, bilateral vestibular schwannomas (BVS) or multiple non-vestibular schwannomas indicate an underlying genetic predisposition. This is most commonly NF2-related schwannomatosis (SWN), but when BVS are absent, this can also indicate SMARCB1-related or LZTR1-related SWN.
METHODS: We assessed the variant detection rates for the three major SWN genes (NF2, LZTR1 and SMARCB1) in 154 people, from 150 families, who had at least one non-vestibular schwannoma, but who did not meet clinical criteria for NF2-related SWN at the time of genetic testing.
RESULTS: We found that 17 (11%) people from 13 families had a germline SMARCB1 variant and 19 (12%) unrelated individuals had a germline LZTR1 variant. 19 people had an NF2 variant, but 18 of these were mosaic and 17 were only detected when 2 tumours were available for testing. The overall detection rate was 25% using blood alone, but increased to 36% when tumour analysis was included. Another 12 people had a germline variant of uncertain significance (VUS).
CONCLUSIONS: There were similar proportions of LZTR1, SMARCB1 or mosaic NF2. However, since an NF2 variant was detected in tumours from 103 people, it is likely that further cases of mosaicism would be detected if more people had additional tumours available for analysis. In addition, if further evidence becomes available to show that the VUSs are pathogenic, this would significantly increase the proportion of people with a genetic diagnosis. Our results indicate the importance of comprehensive genetic testing and improved variant classification.
METHODS: We assessed the variant detection rates for the three major SWN genes (NF2, LZTR1 and SMARCB1) in 154 people, from 150 families, who had at least one non-vestibular schwannoma, but who did not meet clinical criteria for NF2-related SWN at the time of genetic testing.
RESULTS: We found that 17 (11%) people from 13 families had a germline SMARCB1 variant and 19 (12%) unrelated individuals had a germline LZTR1 variant. 19 people had an NF2 variant, but 18 of these were mosaic and 17 were only detected when 2 tumours were available for testing. The overall detection rate was 25% using blood alone, but increased to 36% when tumour analysis was included. Another 12 people had a germline variant of uncertain significance (VUS).
CONCLUSIONS: There were similar proportions of LZTR1, SMARCB1 or mosaic NF2. However, since an NF2 variant was detected in tumours from 103 people, it is likely that further cases of mosaicism would be detected if more people had additional tumours available for analysis. In addition, if further evidence becomes available to show that the VUSs are pathogenic, this would significantly increase the proportion of people with a genetic diagnosis. Our results indicate the importance of comprehensive genetic testing and improved variant classification.