Evidence Hub

Detection of BRCA1 Pathogenic Variant in a 24-Year-Old Endometrial Cancer Patient: Risks of Several Hereditary Tumor Syndromes Assessed Using Germline Multigene Panel Testing

Wang X, Kaneko K, Arakawa H, Habano E, Omi M, Nakashima E, Kawachi H, Tonooka A et al.

Case reports in oncology, 2022

2 citations

Abstract

A 24-year-old woman suspected of Lynch syndrome was found to carry a BRCA1 pathogenic variant, based on germline multigene panel testing (MGPT). The patient was diagnosed with endometrial carcinoma and underwent modified radical hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, pelvic lymphadenectomy, and omentectomy at the age of 23. Based on her father's history of colorectal cancer and her history of early onset endometrial cancer, mismatch repair protein immunohistochemistry analysis was performed. However, no loss of expression for mismatch repair proteins was found. Given her family history of ovarian and breast cancers, MGPT was recommended to identify the presence of any hereditary tumor syndromes. This testing revealed a BRCA1 pathogenic variant (exon13: c.1016delA, p.Lys339ArgfsX2) and diagnosed as hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC). Subsequently, the patient's mother also underwent single-site analysis for this variant, and the same pathogenic variant was detected. The patient and her mother are at high risk of developing BRCA1-associated HBOC-related cancers. Based on family history, clinical surveillance is currently underway for this patient and her mother. Currently, MGPT offers the potential for comprehensive genetic cancer risk assessment and may provide a more rational approach for the genetic assessment of those individuals whose personal and family cancer histories do not fit neatly into a single syndrome. This case suggests that if a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free