Article

Characterization of the P373L E-cadherin germline missense mutation and implication for clinical management.

Department of Human Pathology and Oncology, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
European journal of surgical oncology: the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology (Impact Factor: 2.89). 12/2007; 33(9):1061-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2007.03.001
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) is a cancer susceptibility syndrome caused by E-cadherin germline mutations. One-third of these mutations are of the missense type, representing a burden in genetic counselling. A new germline missense mutation (P373L) was recently identified in a HDGC Italian family. The present work aimed at addressing the disease-causative nature of the P373L mutant.
Assessment of the P373L mutation effect was based on cell aggregation and invasion assays. LOH analysis at the E-cadherin locus, search for somatic E-cadherin mutations and for promoter hypermethylation were performed to identify the mechanism of inactivation of the E-cadherin wild-type allele in the tumour.
In vitro the P373L germline mutation impaired the E-cadherin functions. E-cadherin promoter hypermethylation was observed in the tumour of the P373L mutation carrier.
We conclude that the combination of clinical, in vitro and molecular genetic data is helpful for establishing an accurate analysis of HDGC-associated CDH1 germline missense mutations and subsequently for appropriate clinical management of asymptomatic mutation carriers.

0 Followers
 · 
127 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Only 1% of diffuse gastric cancers occur in families with autosomal dominant gastric cancer susceptibility. Germline mutations in the E-cadherin gene account for the hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) syndrome. We studied a large cohort of gastric cancer patients from Tuscany, a region in Italy, to evaluate the presence of familial clustering of gastric cancer. 238 pedigrees were retrospectively studied by structured interviews. All probands with diagnosed gastric cancer were contacted in-person or by phone and tumor types were assessed in first- and second-degree relatives. Familial aggregation was investigated in order to search for families with suspected HDGC. Familial aggregation for gastric cancer was observed in 79 of 238 cases (33.2%). Among these, there were 64 families (81%) with one gastric cancer other than the proband, 10 families with two gastric cancers (12.7%) and 5 families with three gastric cancers (6.3%). Fourteen families fulfilled the HDGC clinical criteria, one of them presenting with a pathogenic germline mutation in the E-cadherin gene (7.1%). The prevalence of familial HDGC appears extremely high. Since only one pathogenic germline mutation was noted in a family fulfilling the HDGC clinical criteria, factors other than E-cadherin gene mutations may contribute to the familial clustering of HDGC.
    Oncology 02/2007; 72(3-4):243-7. DOI:10.1159/000113015 · 2.61 Impact Factor
  • Surgery 12/2007; 142(5):645-57. DOI:10.1016/j.surg.2007.06.006 · 3.11 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The mechanisms that underlie the initiation of human cancer are poorly understood. Here, we describe the development of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and argue that it arises from the disruption of the regenerative processes that are inherent to all epithelial tissues. This model supports the cancer stem cell hypothesis, in which tumors contain a subpopulation of cells with the key stem cell characteristics of capacity for self renewal, differentiation and limitless replication. We argue that epigenetic modifications induced by common environmental and physiological pressures are able to initiate this disruption. The carcinogenic effects of these modifications are potentially reversible through the use of epigenetic therapies such as DNA demethylating agents and histone deacetylation inhibitors.
    Future Oncology 05/2008; 4(2):229-39. DOI:10.2217/14796694.4.2.229 · 2.61 Impact Factor