MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308133047 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvac150.283

RF21 | PSUN07 Germline Genetic Testing in a Cohort of Adults with Adrenocortical Carcinoma : Insights From a Clinical Care Setting

2022· article· en· W4308133047 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aurélie Mourot, Stéfanie Parisien‐La Salle, Jonathan Poirier, Harold J. Olney, André Lacroix, Zaki E Haffaf, Isabelle Bourdeau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdrenal and Paraganglionic Tumors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic testingAdrenocortical carcinomaMedicineMSH6CHEK2Genetic counselingMSH2Context (archaeology)Lynch syndromeGermlineOncologyGermline mutationCancerInternal medicineGeneticsColorectal cancerBiologyDNA mismatch repairMutation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Context About 5-10% of adrenocortical cancer (ACC) arise in patients with genetic predisposition syndromes, including Li-Fraumeni, Lynch, MEN1, or Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (APC). Recent European (2018) and American guidelines (2020) recommend that all adults with ACC should be offered clinical genetic counseling. There is a paucity of data regarding systematic germline testing in adults with ACC and the extent of the genetic evaluation is unclear. Objective To describe the germline genetic characteristics in a cohort of adult patients with ACC evaluated in a tertiary clinical care center. Methods Data including demographics, personal and family history of neoplasia, pathology reports, clinical features and genetic testing were retrospectively collected from charts of patients treated at Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM). After genetic counseling, genetic testing was proposed to patients with a pathologic diagnosis of ACC. From 2005 to 2015, TP53 gene analysis was performed using direct sequencing and MLPA. Since 2016, multigene testing was performed for a progressively increasing number of oncogenic genes using a custom next-generation panel for germline leucocyte DNA including at least the TP53, MSH2, MSH6, MLH1,PMS2, EPCAM, MEN1, BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (Invitae, CA). An extended panel, based on past medical and familial history, was performed at the discretion of the geneticist. Patient data was retrospectively investigated. Results We analyzed data from 44 patients with available germline genetic results. Median age of the patients was 46 years (ranging from 22 to 79 years), including 11 males (25.0%) and 33 females (75.0%). Ten patients (22.7%) underwent only TP53 gene analysis and 32 patients (72.7%) were studied using the larger oncogenic genetic panel. Germline pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were identified in 5 of the 44 patients (11.4%) while genetic variants of unknown significance (VUS) were found in 7 of the 44 patients (15.9%). Among patients with pathogenic variants, one had a family history and known germline mutation in the BRCA2 gene (8765delAG, p.Glu2846GlyfsX23). One patient had a personal and familial medical history suggesting a MEN1 syndrome that was confirmed with the finding of a germline MEN1 mutation (c.1556delC, p.Pro519Leu fs40). Unsuspected germline pathogenic variants were found in three patients: 1) TP53 (c.425delC, p.Pro142fs), 2) MUTYH (c.536A>G, p.Tyr179Cys) and 3) MSH6 (c.3649-3655, p.Arg1217Leu fs9) genes. Variants of unknown significance (VUS) were found in the following genes: POT1, MSH3, PALB2, RAD51d, APC, ATM and BRCA2. Conclusions Germline pathogenic variants were found in 11.4% of our cohort of patients with ACC. VUS were found in 15.9% of patients but their significance remains to be determined. Genetic counseling and germline genetic testing should be offered to all patients with ACC; however the optimal use and extent of oncogenic gene panels need to be better defined. Presentation: Sunday, June 12, 2022 12:30 p.m. - 2:30 p.m., Sunday, June 12, 2022 12:48 p.m. - 12:53 p.m.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine SocietySame topicAdrenal and Paraganglionic TumorsFrench-language works237,207