Article

Cowden syndrome: a critical review of the clinical literature.

Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Cancer Genetics Program, Comprehensive Cancer Center, James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43221, USA.
Journal of Genetic Counseling (Impact Factor: 1.75). 11/2008; 18(1):13-27. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-008-9187-7
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Cowden syndrome (CS) is a multi-system disease involving hamartomatous overgrowth of tissues of all three embryonic origins and increased risks for thyroid, breast and possibly other cancers. Benign breast, thyroid, uterine and skin lesions are also common. Approximately 80% of patients with CS have an identifiable germline mutation in the PTEN gene. The majority of the existing data on the frequencies of component clinical features have been obtained from compilations of case reports in the literature, many of which predate the establishment in 1996 of consensus diagnostic criteria. Many of these reports also suffer from ascertainment bias which emphasized the dermatologic features of the disease. This paper presents an overview of Cowden syndrome focusing on a critical evaluation of the major literature on the component cancers, benign features, and molecular findings in CS, noting the limitations of the published data.

0 Followers
 · 
155 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast cancer and gynecological cancers impact a significant portion of women each year. Identifying women at high risk is essential for implementation of screening and risk reduction recommendations. Risk assessment for these cancers involves an evaluation of many factors. This review discusses an overview of hereditary breast and gynecological cancers and the process of a cancer genetic risk assessment. Risk assessment models for breast cancer should be used with caution, especially in populations in which they are not validated. Additionally, the BRCAPRO model may underestimate the likelihood of BRCA mutations in certain populations.The utilization of next-generation sequencing panels is increasing. Benefits and limitations of panel testing are described in the literature. There are currently no guidelines for the use of panel testing; however, some reports of institutional experiences and recommendations are available. Cancer genetic risk assessment is complex, and models developed to estimate risk may not apply to all populations. Identifying genetic factors related to cancer risk is also becoming increasingly complex with the clinical implementation of panel testing. This testing approach should be critically evaluated by healthcare providers. Further research is needed to create evidence-based guidelines for panel testing and management recommendations for moderately penetrant genes.
    Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 12/2014; 27(1). DOI:10.1097/GCO.0000000000000142 · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This guideline presents recommendations for the management of patients with hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. The initial assessment is the collection of a family history of cancers and premalignant gastrointestinal conditions and should provide enough information to develop a preliminary determination of the risk of a familial predisposition to cancer. Age at diagnosis and lineage (maternal and/or paternal) should be documented for all diagnoses, especially in first- and second-degree relatives. When indicated, genetic testing for a germline mutation should be done on the most informative candidate(s) identified through the family history evaluation and/or tumor analysis to confirm a diagnosis and allow for predictive testing of at-risk relatives. Genetic testing should be conducted in the context of pre- and post-test genetic counseling to ensure the patient's informed decision making. Patients who meet clinical criteria for a syndrome as well as those with identified pathogenic germline mutations should receive appropriate surveillance measures in order to minimize their overall risk of developing syndrome-specific cancers. This guideline specifically discusses genetic testing and management of Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis (AFAP), MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP), Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, juvenile polyposis syndrome, Cowden syndrome, serrated (hyperplastic) polyposis syndrome, hereditary pancreatic cancer, and hereditary gastric cancer.
    The American Journal of Gastroenterology 02/2015; 110(2):223-62. DOI:10.1038/ajg.2014.435 · 9.21 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As more women with an inherited increased risk of gynecologic cancer are identified, the clinician will be challenged to counsel these women on risk-reducing strategies. Although there are some recent studies that show potential for ovarian cancer surveillance strategies, there remains no definitive evidence that surveillance leads to a stage shift or a reduction in mortality. Recent studies support the following conclusions: first, oral contraceptive use reduces ovarian cancer risk without significantly increasing breast cancer risk, second, salpingo-oophorectomy leads to a reduction in ovarian cancer, breast cancer, and overall mortality for women who are carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, and third, the 'ovarian cancers' associated with BRCA mutations actually include fallopian tube and peritoneal cancer and may have a precursor lesion in the fallopian tube; this observation has prompted the provocative suggestion of removing the fallopian tube to reduce ovarian cancer risk. Because of the interplay between the hormonal impact of ovarian function on breast cancer risk, the risk reduction associated with oophorectomy, and the impact of early menopause on other health outcomes, an integrated multidisciplinary approach is required to aid in the increasingly complex decisions faced by women with high inherited risk of developing gynecologic cancers.
    Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 12/2014; 27(1). DOI:10.1097/GCO.0000000000000143 · 2.37 Impact Factor