Enrichment of Germline DNA-repair Gene Mutations in Patients with Colorectal Cancer.

Saud H. Aldubayan,Marios Giannakis,Nathanael Moore,Xinmeng Jasmine Mu,G. Celine Han,Reiko Nishihara,Zhi Rong Qian,Li Liu,Shuji Ogino,Levi A. Garraway,Charles S. Fuchs,Eliezer Mendel Van Allen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.1500
IF: 45.3
2017-01-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:1500 Background: Twin studies showed that 30% of all colorectal cancer (CRC) patients have an inherited genetic susceptibility. Several CRC predisposition genes have been described to date. However, mutations in these genes explain the risk in only 5-10% of CRC cases. In this study, we hypothesized that some of the CRC heritability may be explained by excess disruptive germline mutations in DNA repair genes (DRGs). Methods: Exome sequencing data of 716 in the discovery cohort (CanSeq and NHS/HPFS studies) and 1609 CRC patients in the validation cohort (TCGA and NSCCG studies) were used to evaluate germline variants in a pre-selected group of 42 DRGs and 12 known CRC risk genes. Frequencies of disruptive mutations in our cohorts were examined relative to 27173 non-Finnish European cancer-free adults from the ExAC cohort to evaluate for enrichment. Results: Of 716 patients in the discovery cohort, 27 (3.8%) patients harbored germline mutations in APC (n = 11), MSH6 (n = 2), MUTYH (n = 11), CHEK2 (n = 1) and TP53 (n = 2). Interestingly, germline mutations in ATM and PALB2 were significantly enriched in our CRC discovery cohort (OR = 2.7; P = 0.044; and OR = 4.8; P = 0.026, respectively). Evaluation of germline data from another 1609 CRC patients (validation cohort) also showed significantly higher rates of ATM mutations (5; 0.7%; OR = 2.1; P = 0.044), and a trend for enrichment of PALB2 mutations (3; 0.4%; OR = 2.8; P = 0.056). Secondary analysis of actionable germline mutations in a highly penetrant cancer risk gene set ( ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1 and PALB2) suggest a broader enrichment trend in CRC patients for these genes (Discovery: OR = 1.7; P = 0.06; Validation: OR = 2; P = 1.96e-04). Conclusions: Our analysis of germline variants in 2325 CRC patients showed the first robust evidence for germline ATM mutations to confer a higher risk of developing CRC. We also presented evidence to support PALB2 as a potential novel CRC risk gene. Overall, our study shows that mutations in some DRGs may explain some of the missing CRC heritability. It also indicates that a significant percentage of CRC patients, who carry mutations in highly actionable genes where cancer screening recommendations for patients and families do exist, are not captured with current testing recommendations.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?