Hereditary Ovarian Cancer: Not Only BRCA 1 and 2 Genes Ovarian Cancer and Us OVARIAN CANCER and US Ovarian Cancer and Us

Blog Archives: Nov 2004 - present

#ovariancancers



Special items: Ovarian Cancer and Us blog best viewed in Firefox

Search This Blog

Friday, July 31, 2015

Hereditary Ovarian Cancer: Not Only BRCA 1 and 2 Genes



2015 open access

 Abstract

More than one-fifth of ovarian tumors have hereditary susceptibility and, in about 65–85% of these cases, the genetic abnormality is a germline mutation in BRCA genes. Nevertheless, several other suppressor genes and oncogenes have been associated with hereditary ovarian cancers, including the mismatch repair (MMR) genes in Lynch syndrome, the tumor suppressor gene, TP53, in the Li-Fraumeni syndrome, and several other genes involved in the double-strand breaks repair system, such as CHEK2, RAD51, BRIP1, and PALB2. The study of genetic discriminators and deregulated pathways involved in hereditary ovarian syndromes is relevant for the future development of molecular diagnostic strategies and targeted therapeutic approaches. The recent development and implementation of next-generation sequencing technologies have provided the opportunity to simultaneously analyze multiple cancer susceptibility genes, reduce the delay and costs, and optimize the molecular diagnosis of hereditary tumors. Particularly, the identification of mutations in ovarian cancer susceptibility genes in healthy women may result in a more personalized cancer risk management with tailored clinical and radiological surveillance, chemopreventive approaches, and/or prophylactic surgeries. On the other hand, for ovarian cancer patients, the identification of mutations may provide potential targets for biologic agents and guide treatment decision-making.

1. Introduction
2. Clinical, Histopathological, and Molecular Features of Ovarian Cancer
3. Mismatch Repair Genes and Lynch Syndrome
4. TP53 and Li-Fraumeni Syndrome
5. Genes Involved in Double-Strand Breaks Repair
6. Next-Generation Sequencing with Multigene Panels
7. Conclusions
.....The centralization of genetic testing enables the improvement of access and quality of testing and allows for the creation of a more comprehensive database for research, guiding evidence-based management recommendations [89–91].

0 comments :

Post a Comment

Your comments?

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.