A practice guideline from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors: referral indications for cancer predisposition assessment

Journal name:
Genetics in Medicine
(2014)
Volume:
17,
Pages:
70–87
DOI:
doi:10.1038/gim.2014.147
Received
Accepted
Published online

Abstract

Disclaimer: The practice guidelines of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) are developed by members of the ACMG and NSGC to assist medical geneticists, genetic counselors, and other health-care providers in making decisions about appropriate management of genetic concerns, including access to and/or delivery of services. Each practice guideline focuses on a clinical or practice-based issue and is the result of a review and analysis of current professional literature believed to be reliable. As such, information and recommendations within the ACMG and NSGC joint practice guidelines reflect the current scientific and clinical knowledge at the time of publication, are current only as of their publication date, and are subject to change without notice as advances emerge. In addition, variations in practice, which take into account the needs of the individual patient and the resources and limitations unique to the institution or type of practice, may warrant approaches, treatments, and/or procedures that differ from the recommendations outlined in this guideline. Therefore, these recommendations should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of management, nor does the use of such recommendations guarantee a particular outcome. Genetic counseling practice guidelines are never intended to displace a health-care provider’s best medical judgment based on the clinical circumstances of a particular patient or patient population. Practice guidelines are published by the ACMG or the NSGC for educational and informational purposes only, and neither the ACMG nor the NSGC “approve” or “endorse” any specific methods, practices, or sources of information.

Cancer genetic consultation is an important aspect of the care of individuals at increased risk of a hereditary cancer syndrome. Yet several patient, clinician, and system-level barriers hinder identification of individuals appropriate for cancer genetics referral. Thus, the purpose of this practice guideline is to present a single set of comprehensive personal and family history criteria to facilitate identification and maximize appropriate referral of at-risk individuals for cancer genetic consultation. To develop this guideline, a literature search for hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes was conducted using PubMed. In addition, GeneReviews and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were reviewed when applicable. When conflicting guidelines were identified, the evidence was ranked as follows: position papers from national and professional organizations ranked highest, followed by consortium guidelines, and then peer-reviewed publications from single institutions. The criteria for cancer genetic consultation referral are provided in two formats: (i) tables that list the tumor type along with the criteria that, if met, would warrant a referral for a cancer genetic consultation and (ii) an alphabetical list of the syndromes, including a brief summary of each and the rationale for the referral criteria that were selected. Consider referral for a cancer genetic consultation if your patient or any of their first-degree relatives meet any of these referral criteria.

Genet Med advance online publication 13 November 2014

Keywords:

cancer genetics; cancer predisposition; genetic counseling; referral guidelines; referral indications

Cancer genetic consultation services include the evaluation of patients’ personal and family history for concerning features of hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes, development of a differential diagnosis for one or more possible hereditary cancer syndromes, genetic testing if indicated and available, recommendations for management, cancer surveillance and prevention, and information regarding genetic counseling and genetic testing for at-risk relatives. This counseling is informed by the genetic risk assessment or diagnosis, which typically includes personal and family history, genetic and other laboratory results, results from procedures and imaging studies, and physical examination findings. Genetic counseling is an important component of the genetic consultation; it entails a discussion about the clinical and genetic aspects of a suspected diagnosis—including the mode of inheritance, identification of family members at risk, and discussion of the benefits, risks, and limitations of genetic testing and the alternative to not test—and helps patients make informed decisions about genetic testing considering their health-care needs, preferences, and values. Genetic testing performed without pre- and posttest genetic counseling by qualified clinicians has been associated with negative patient and societal outcomes such as misinterpretation of genetic test results, inappropriate medical management, lack of informed decision making, violation of established ethical standards, adverse psychosocial outcomes, and costly, unnecessary genetic testing.1,2,3

Cancer genetic consultation is an important aspect of the care of individuals at increased risk of a hereditary cancer syndrome.4,5,6,7,8 Yet, several patient, clinician, and system-level barriers hinder the identification of individuals appropriate for cancer genetics referral. In addition to limited time for the clinician to collect family history necessary to trigger a referral9,10,11 and limited patient awareness of their family cancer history,12 identifying appropriate patients is complicated by an abundance of complex criteria and guidelines that often differ from each other.13 Thus, the purpose of this practice guideline is to present a single set of comprehensive personal and family history criteria to facilitate identification and maximize appropriate referral of at-risk individuals for cancer genetic consultation. The criteria in this guidance statement are not designed to dictate what, if any, genetic testing is indicated or to recommend any specific cancer screening or treatment management.

Health-care providers have been encouraged to take a thorough family history from their patients and to refer them to genetic providers if the history is suspicious for a hereditary condition. Determining whom to refer is difficult for clinicians who do not specialize in cancer genetics, who may rarely encounter these syndromes, and who may not be familiar with the types of cancers known to be associated with a particular syndrome. These referral guidelines were developed in a table format so that the health-care provider can simply look up the cancer(s) that have been reported in a family and determine whether the personal or family history meets any of the criteria that warrant a referral. We include a short summary of each syndrome that explains the rationale behind the referral criteria in the Recommendations section of this guideline.

Materials and Methods

To develop this guideline, a literature search for each of the hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes described below was conducted using PubMed. In addition, GeneReviews (http://www.genereviews.org) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines (http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp) were reviewed when applicable. The searches were conducted between 1 December 2012 and 20 June 2013 and included the following search terms: hereditary cancer syndromes, referral criteria, guidelines, testing, mutation likelihood, and each syndrome’s specific name. When conflicting guidelines were identified, the following processes were used to select the referral criteria for inclusion in this practice guideline. We ranked the sources of the differing guidelines. Position papers from national and professional organizations ranked highest, followed by consortium guidelines and then peer-reviewed publications from single institutions. When guidelines from national and professional organizations differed, an attempt was made to select the least restrictive (i.e., most inclusive) set of referral criteria, as long as we felt it would not result in too many inappropriate referrals. For example, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network offers both evaluation criteria and genetic testing criteria for hereditary breast–ovarian cancer syndrome. We believe that the evaluation guidelines would result in an unmanageable number of referrals with little yield to patients and therefore chose the National Comprehensive Cancer Network genetic testing recommendations.

Recommendations

The criteria for cancer genetic consultation referral are detailed in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 includes an alphabetical list of common cancers along with the criteria that, if met, would warrant a referral for a cancer genetic consultation. Table 2 includes the same information based on an alphabetical list of rare cancers. Referring to the tables in the clinic when a cancer is noted in a family history may be helpful to quickly determine whether a referral is indicated. If the family or individual meets the referral guideline for a particular syndrome, a brief summary of the syndrome and the rationale for the referral criteria can be found listed alphabetically in the text below. More detailed information about these syndromes can be found elsewhere.14

Table 1: Common benign and malignant tumors and the criteria that warrant assessment for cancer predisposition
Table 2: Rare benign and malignant tumors and the criteria that warrant assessment for cancer predisposition

Consider referral for a cancer genetic consultation if your patients or any of their first-degree relatives meet any of these criteria. All affected relatives must be on the same side of the family. For the purposes of these guidelines, close relatives include first-degree relatives such as parents, siblings, and children, and second-degree relatives such as aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, grandparents, and grandchildren. Please note that all the syndromes described in this guideline are inherited in an autosomal dominant manner, except where otherwise noted. Finally, any individual in a family with a known mutation in a cancer susceptibility gene should be referred for cancer genetic consultation.

Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome (OMIM 135150)

Birt–Hogg–Dubé syndrome is caused by mutations in the FLCN gene and is characterized by the presence of classic skin lesions (fibrofolliculomas, perifollicular fibromas, trichodiscomas or angiofibromas, and acrochordons), bilateral and multifocal renal tumors (chromophobe clear cell renal carcinoma, renal oncocytoma, oncocytic hybrid tumor, and less often, clear cell renal carcinoma), and multiple bilateral lung cysts often associated with spontaneous pneumothorax.15 Skin lesions typically occur in the 30s and 40s and increase with age. The median age at diagnosis of renal cell tumors is 48 years, with a range of 31–71 years.

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) ≥5 Birt–Hogg–Dubé–associated facial or truncal papules; (ii) early-onset (<50 years old), bilateral or multifocal clear cell renal carcinoma; (iii) renal cancers with Birt–Hogg–Dubé histology (chromophobe, oncocytoma, or oncocytic hybrid); or (iv) lung cysts associated with multiple spontaneous pneumothoraxes.16,17

Carney complex (OMIM 160980)

Carney complex is caused by mutations in the PRKAR1A gene and is characterized by pale brown to black lentigenes; myxomas of the heart, skin, and breast; primary pigmented nodular adrenocortical disease; and large cell calcifying Sertoli cell tumors. Psammomatous melanotic schwannoma, a rare nerve sheath tumor, can also occur. At least 50% of individuals with isolated primary pigmented nodular adrenocortical disease have a PRKAR1A mutation.18,19,20 Thus, isolated primary pigmented nodular adrenocortical disease is sufficient for referral to genetic consultation. PRKAR1A mutations are found in 71% of individuals with at least two major diagnostic criteria for Carney complex18 (Table 3).

Table 3: Carney complex criteria21

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) primary pigmented nodular adrenocortical disease or (ii) two or more diagnostic criteria21 (Table 3).

Constitutional mismatch repair deficiency (OMIM 276300)

Constitutional mismatch repair deficiency is a recessive condition caused by biallelic mutations in the mismatch repair genes (MLH1, MSH2 (including methylation due to an EPCAM deletion), MSH6, and PMS2) and is characterized by a high risk of developing cancers during childhood, including Lynch syndrome (LS)–associated cancers, hematologic malignancies, and embryonic tumors.22 Individuals with constitutional mismatch repair deficiency have neurofibromatosis type 1–like features, with café-au-lait macules observed in most cases23 and skinfold freckling, Lisch nodules, neurofibromas, and tibial pseudoarthosis reported in fewer cases. Individuals with constitutional mismatch repair deficiency do not always have a family history of cancer.

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) an LS-associated cancer in childhood or (ii) another type of childhood cancer and one or more of the following features: (i) café-au-lait macules, skinfold freckling, Lisch nodules, neurofibromas, tibial pseudoarthrosis, or hypopigmented skin lesions; (ii) family history of LS-associated cancer; (iii) a second primary cancer; (iv) a sibling with a childhood cancer; or (v) consanguineous parents.

Cowden syndrome, also known as PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome (OMIM 158350)

Cowden syndrome is caused by mutations in the PTEN gene and is characterized by benign skin findings, increased lifetime risks for breast (30–85%; often early-onset), follicular thyroid (10–38%), renal cell (34%), endometrial (5–28%), and colorectal cancers (9%), and possibly melanoma (6%).24,25,26,27,28 Clinical diagnostic criteria involve combinations of major and minor criteria29 (Table 4). We recommend referral for anyone meeting any three criteria from the major or minor diagnostic criteria.

Table 4: Cowden syndrome criteria (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2013)

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) Lhermitte–Duclos disease diagnosed after age 18 (ref. 30) or (ii) any three criteria from the major or minor diagnostic criteria list in the same person31 (Table 4).

Familial adenomatous polyposis and attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis (OMIM 175100)

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and attenuated FAP are caused by mutations in the APC gene and are characterized by adenomatous colon polyps and increased lifetime risk for colorectal cancer (nearly 100% for individuals with FAP and 70% for individuals with attenuated FAP).32 A clinical diagnosis of classic FAP is made when an individual has >100 adenomatous polyps in his or her colon. Attenuated FAP is characterized by 30–100 adenomatous polyps. Individuals with FAP are also at increased risk for duodenal (4–12%), pancreatic (~2%), and papillary thyroid (cribriform morular variant)33,34 (1–2%)29,30 cancers, as well as hepatoblastoma by age 5 (1–2%)35,36 and medulloblastoma (<1%).32 Extracolonic manifestations can include congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigmented epithelium, osteomas, dental abnormalities, benign cutaneous lesions such as epidermoid cysts and fibromas, and desmoid tumors. APC mutations are found in 80% of patients with 1,000 or more adenomas, 56% of patients with 100–999 adenomas, 10% of patients with 20–99 adenomas, and 5% of patients with 10–19 adenomas.37

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) a total of ≥10 adenomatous colon polyps with or without a colorectal or other FAP-associated cancer38; (ii) a cribriform morular variant of papillary thyroid cancer; (iii) a desmoid tumor; or (iv) hepatoblastoma diagnosed before age 5.

Familial gastrointestinal stromal tumor (OMIM 606764)

Familial gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is a rare condition associated with mutations in the KIT, PDGFRA, SDHB, and SDHC genes. Individuals with germline mutations in KIT can have hyperpigmentation, mast cell tumors, or dysphagia. Large hands have been associated with PDGFRA mutations. Individuals with neurofibromatosis type 1 can also develop GISTs. Wild-type GISTs are defined as GISTs that do not have detectable mutations in KIT, PDGFRA, or BRAF. Of patients with sporadic wild-type GIST, 12% had SDHB or SDHC mutations,39 and in another series, 12% of wild-type GISTs had an SDHA mutation (all of which exhibited loss of the SDHA protein by immunohistochemistry).40 There are no published referral guidelines for this condition; recommendations were made based on expert opinion.

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) three or more close relatives with GIST; (ii) wild-type GIST; or (iii) individuals with three or more GISTs.

Familial pancreatic cancer (OMIM 260350)

Pancreatic cancer risk is increased in several known hereditary cancer syndromes such as Lynch syndrome, Peutz–Jeghers syndrome, FAP, hereditary melanoma, and hereditary breast–ovarian cancer syndrome. The most common cause of familial pancreatic cancer are mutations in the BRCA2 gene. Published studies of families with two or more pancreatic cancer diagnoses demonstrate that 2.8–17% of these families have a BRCA2 gene mutation.41,42,43,44 Because of increased prevalence of BRCA mutations, unselected individuals of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry with pancreatic cancer have a 5.5–31% chance of having one of the three Ashkenazi Jewish founder mutations.45,46,47 Some families with familial pancreatic cancer also have mutations in the CDKN2A, PALB2, or ATM genes. PALB2 mutations occur in 0.9–3.7% of pancreatic cancer patients with at least one additional relative affected with pancreatic cancer.48,49,50 ATM mutations were found in 2.4% (4/166) of patients with familial pancreatic cancer and in 4.6% (4/87) of families with three or more affected individuals.51

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry and pancreatic cancer at any age; (ii) pancreatic cancer and a close relative with pancreatic cancer; (iii) three or more cases of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and/or aggressive prostate cancer; or (iv) three or more cases of pancreatic cancer and/or melanoma.

Familial prostate cancer (OMIM 176807, 601518, 602759, 300147, 603688, 608656, and 153622)

The genetic etiology of familial prostate cancer has proven difficult to characterize. Autosomal dominant, recessive, and X-linked patterns of inheritance have been demonstrated in families with multiple cases of prostate cancer.14 For these guidelines, the Hopkins criteria52 have been adopted to define familial prostate cancer. Several studies have identified a specific HOXB13 mutation in 1.4–4.6% of individuals (primarily of Northern European ancestry) meeting these criteria.53,54,55 Identifying the basis of familial prostate cancer is ongoing, and genes found to date account for a small portion of families. However, referral may be appropriate for these families to help address concerns and provide screening recommendations.

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) three or more first-degree relatives with prostate cancer; (ii) two or more cases of prostate cancer diagnosed before age 55; or (iii) aggressive prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥7) and two or more cases of breast, ovarian, or pancreatic cancer.

Hereditary breast–ovarian cancer syndrome (OMIM 604370 and 612555)

Hereditary breast–ovarian cancer (HBOC) syndrome is caused by mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and is characterized by increased risks for early-onset breast, multiple breast primaries, male breast, and epithelial ovarian, Fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancers. In addition, cancers of the pancreas, prostate, and melanoma are more common in individuals with HBOC syndrome. The pathology of “triple-negative phenotype” breast cancer (estrogen receptor–negative, progesterone receptor–negative, and HER2/neu–negative) has been strongly associated with BRCA1 mutations.56,57,58,59 The likelihood of identifying a BRCA1/2 mutation in a woman with ovarian cancer at any age is around 13–18%.60,61,62 Of males with breast cancer, 15–20% have a BRCA1/2 mutation.63 The overall prevalence of BRCA1 mutations is estimated at 1 in 300 and that of BRCA2 mutations is estimated at 1 in 800, but founder mutations in many populations (e.g., Ashkenazi Jewish,64,65,66,67 Icelandic,68 and Mexican Hispanic69 populations) lead to increased mutation prevalence in these populations.

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) breast cancer diagnosed at or before age 50; (ii) triple-negative breast cancer diagnosed at or before age 60; (iii) two or more primary breast cancers in the same person; (iv) ovarian, Fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer; (v) Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry and breast or pancreatic cancer at any age; or (vi) male breast cancer. Individuals with a family history of three or more cases of breast, ovarian, pancreatic, and/or aggressive prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥7) (refs. 70,71) should also be referred. Note that this should not include families in which all three cases are aggressive prostate cancer.

Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (OMIM 137215)

Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer is caused by mutations in the CDH1 gene and is characterized by an increased risk for diffuse gastric cancer, lobular breast cancer, and signet ring colorectal cancer. CDH1 mutations occur in 25–50% of individuals who meet the hereditary diffuse gastric cancer criteria.72 The International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium’s most recent consensus guidelines for the clinical management of hereditary diffuse gastric cancer include indications for CDH1 testing and have been adopted below.73

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) diffuse gastric cancer diagnosed before age 40; (ii) lobular breast cancer and diffuse gastric cancer in the same person; (iii) lobular breast cancer in one relative and diffuse gastric cancer in another, one diagnosed before age 50; or (iv) two cases of gastric cancer in family, one of which is a confirmed diffuse gastric cancer diagnosed before age 50. Individuals with a family history of three or more relatives with gastric cancer should also be referred.

Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (OMIM 605839 and 150800)

Hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer is caused by mutations in the FH gene and is characterized by increased risks for renal cancer and cutaneous and uterine leiomyomas. Individuals with cutaneous leiomyoma and renal cell tumors of one of three types (papillary type 2 (refs. 74,75,76,77,78)), collecting duct,71,74,75 and tubulopapillary78) should receive genetic counseling referral.79,80 Although studies of the proportion of isolated cases of cutaneous leiomyomas with an FH mutation are not available, 85% of individuals with cutaneous leiomyomas (some of whom were isolated cases and some of whom had a family history of uterine leiomyoma or renal cell tumors) had an FH mutation in several studies.74,75,76,77,81 A FH mutation was found in 17% of patients with papillary type 2 renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) cutaneous leiomyomas or (ii) RCC with histology characteristic of hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer.

Hereditary melanoma, also known as familial atypical mole and malignant melanoma (OMIM 155600)

Hereditary melanoma is caused by mutations in the CDKN2A/ARF gene, which encodes p16 and p14ARF, and the CDK4 gene. Hereditary melanoma is characterized by multiple melanocytic nevi (usually >50) and a family history of melanoma. Individuals with hereditary melanoma have a 17% risk for pancreatic cancer by age 75 (ref. 82). The penetrance for melanoma in families with CDKN2A mutations is at least 28%, although it is perhaps as high as 91% in families with multiple cases.83,84,85 A review of 466 families with at least three cases of melanoma revealed 38% had CDKN2A mutations.86 Penetrance and detection rate vary by geography.84 In addition, 2–3% of these families have mutations in CDK4 (n = 5) and p14ARF (n = 7). CDKN2A gene mutations seem to be rare in families with pancreatic cancer without any cases of melanoma44 but occur in up to 11% (2/18) of families with both pancreatic cancer and melanoma.87

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) three or more melanomas in the same person or (ii) three or more cases of melanoma and/or pancreatic cancer.

Hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome (OMIM 201228 and 610069)

Hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome is characterized by multiple polyps of mixed histology (hyperplastic, adenomatous, and juvenile polyps), leading to an increased risk for colorectal cancer. The major gene(s) responsible for hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome have not been identified; however, some cases are caused by mutations in the BMPR1A gene.88,89,90 Also, a founder mutation involving the GREM1 gene was identified in Ashkenazi Jewish patients with hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome.91

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with ≥10 colorectal polyps with mixed histology.

Hereditary papillary RCC (OMIM 605074)

Hereditary papillary RCC is caused by mutations in the MET gene and is characterized by an increased risk of developing papillary type 1 RCC. In a series of 129 patients with papillary RCC, 6% (8/129) had a germline MET mutation.92 Because this tumor type is rare, our referral criteria are for anyone with a papillary type 1 RCC. Note that patients with a papillary type 2 RCC should be referred as well because of the possibility of hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer.

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with a papillary type 1 RCC.

Hereditary paraganglioma–pheochromocytoma syndrome (OMIM 115310, 168000, 605373, 601650, 154950, and 613403)

Hereditary paraganglioma–pheochromocytoma syndrome is caused by mutations in the SDHB, SDHD, SDHC, SDHAF2, MAX, and TMEM127 genes and is characterized by an increased risk for paragangliomas and pheochromocytomas. In multiple series of individuals with paragangliomas and pheochromocytomas, 8–25% had hereditary paraganglioma–pheochromocytoma syndrome due to a germline mutation in the SDHB, SDHC, or SDHD genes.93,94,95,96,97,98 Rates of hereditary paraganglioma–pheochromocytoma syndrome in individuals with a positive family history or other clinical factors (e.g., multiple tumors, head and neck location) are considerably higher.93,94,95,96,97

Referral should be considered for any individual who has a personal history of or a first-degree relative with a paraganglioma or pheochromocytoma.

Hereditary retinoblastoma (OMIM 180200)

Hereditary retinoblastoma is caused by mutations in the RB1 gene and is characterized by a malignant tumor of the retina, usually occurring before age 5. It is estimated that about 40% of all retinoblastomas are hereditary.99 Individuals with a positive family history of retinoblastoma, bilateral tumors, and multifocal tumors have the highest chance to have hereditary retinoblastoma.99 Individuals with hereditary retinoblastoma can also have an increased risk for pinealoblastoma,100 osteosarcomas, sarcoma (especially radiogenic), and melanoma.101,102

Referral should be considered for any individual who has a personal history of or first-degree relative with a retinoblastoma.

Juvenile polyposis syndrome (OMIM 174900)

Juvenile polyposis syndrome is caused by mutations in the SMAD4 (20%) and BMPR1A (20%) genes103 and is characterized by juvenile-type hamartomatous polyps throughout the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The term juvenile polyp refers to a specific histologic type of polyp, not the age at diagnosis. The risk for GI cancers (mainly colorectal cancer, although cancers of the stomach, upper GI tract, and pancreas have been reported) in families with juvenile polyposis syndrome ranges from 9 to 50%.104 Extraintestinal features such as valvular heart disease (11%), telangiectasia or vascular anomalies (9%, all in SMAD4 carriers), and macrocephaly (11%) can occur.105 Some individuals with juvenile polyposis syndrome due to mutations in the SMAD4 gene may also have symptoms of hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.106,107

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) three to five cumulative histologically proven juvenile GI polyps108,109,110; (ii) any number of juvenile GI polyps with a positive family history of juvenile polyposis syndrome; or (iii) multiple juvenile polyps located throughout the GI tract.38,103

Li–Fraumeni syndrome (OMIM 151623)

Li–Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is caused by mutations in the TP53 gene and is characterized by the core cancers of breast, brain, adrenocortex, and non-Ewing sarcoma,111 with onset often before age 50 and multiple primary tumors.112 Young age at diagnosis (before age 30) and the type of malignancy are good indicators of a TP53 mutation.113 In individuals diagnosed with an adrenocortical tumor or choroid plexus tumor at or before age 18, the likelihood of identifying a TP53 mutation approaches 80 and 100%, respectively.112,114,115 Individuals with a childhood sarcoma have a higher likelihood of LFS; 6.6% had a TP53 mutation in one series (although the majority of these cases would meet the classic LFS criteria).116 For these guidelines, we are adopting a combination of the Eeles and revised Chompret criteria.117 In two large studies, 29%118 and 35%112 of individuals who met the original, slightly more restrictive, Chompret criteria119 had a TP53 mutation. However, 14% of individuals who met the looser Eeles criteria also had a TP53 mutation.112

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) two or more close relatives with a tumor in the LFS spectrum (Table 5), one diagnosed at or before age 45; (ii) breast cancer diagnosed before age 30; (iii) two or more LFS tumors in the same person, one diagnosed at or before age 45; (iv) adrenocortical tumor; (v) choroid plexus tumor; or (vi) childhood sarcoma.117

Table 5: Tumors associated with Li–Fraumeni syndrome

Lynch syndrome (OMIM 120435 and 120436)

Lynch syndrome (LS) is caused by mutations in the following mismatch repair genes: MLH1, MSH2 (including methylation due to an EPCAM deletion), MSH6, or PMS2; LS is characterized by increased lifetime risks for colorectal (40–80%), endometrial (25–60%), ovarian (4–24%), and gastric (1–13%) cancers.120,121 Individuals with LS can also have an increased risk for urothelial carcinoma, glioblastoma, and sebaceous, biliary, small bowel, and pancreatic adenocarcinomas122,123,124,125 (Table 6). The lifetime risks for cancer are lower in individuals with MSH6 and PMS2 mutations.121,125 Most tumors (77–89%) from individuals with LS are characterized by microsatellite instability, which is an expansion or contraction of repetitive areas in the DNA, called microsatellites, due to defective mismatch repair.126 In addition, there are immunohistochemical antibodies available for the four mismatch repair proteins, and one or two of the proteins is absent in 83% of tumors from individuals with LS.126 One or both of these tumor screening tests are sometimes performed at the time of diagnosis for colorectal and endometrial cancer and can serve as an indication for referral for a LS evaluation. The most well-known criteria developed for LS include the Amsterdam criteria and the Bethesda guidelines, both of which have undergone revision.127,128,129,130 Yet neither of these criteria sufficiently considers the breadth of cancers associated with LS. Furthermore, they are complex and difficult to apply. Thus, the criteria selected for this referral guideline are modified from the “Finnish criteria,” which are simple, easy to apply, based on two large population-based studies, and identify the majority of patients found to have LS.124,131,132,133

Table 6: Tumors associated with Lynch syndrome

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) colorectal or endometrial cancer diagnosed before age 50; (ii) colorectal or endometrial cancer diagnosed at or after age 50 if there is a first-degree relative with colorectal or endometrial cancer at any age; (iii) synchronous or metachronous colorectal or endometrial cancer; (iv) sebaceous adenoma or carcinoma and one or more additional case of any LS-associated cancer (Table 6) in the same person or in relatives; or (v) a tumor exhibiting mismatch repair deficiency (high microsatellite instability or loss of a mismatch repair protein based on immunohistochemical staining). Individuals with a family history of three or more LS-associated cancers (Table 6) should also be referred.

Melanoma–astrocytoma syndrome (OMIM 155755)

Melanoma–astrocytoma syndrome is caused by mutations involving both CDKN2A and p14ARF, p14ARF alone, and possibly the ANRIL antisense noncoding RNA; it is a rare condition that leads to an increased risk for melanoma and astrocytoma tumors.

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) melanoma and astrocytoma in the same person or (ii) one case of melanoma and one case of astrocytoma in two first-degree relatives.

Multiple endocrine neoplasia type I (OMIM 131100)

Multiple endocrine neoplasia type I (MEN1) is caused by mutations in the MEN1 gene and is characterized by increased risk of endocrine and nonendocrine tumors.134 Of individuals with two MEN1 manifestations, 26% had a MEN1 mutation.135 Because of the relatively low mutation detection rates in sporadic cases,134,136,137,138,139 no single MEN1-associated tumor is sufficient to warrant genetic counseling referral, with the exception of gastrinoma, of which 20% are due to MEN1 mutations.140 For this guideline, we are adopting the recommendation of the MEN1 International Consensus134 and the MEN1 Clinical Practice Guidelines.140 Note that this guideline is less stringent than the clinical diagnostic criteria for MEN1.

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) two or more different MEN1-associated tumors (adrenal, parathyroid, pituitary, pancreas, or thymic tumor or bronchial carcinoid tumor) in the same person134,141; (ii) gastrinoma134,140; (iii) multiple different pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in the same person134,140; (iv) parathyroid adenoma diagnosed before age 30 (refs. 140,142); (v) parathyroid adenomas involving multiple glands140,142; or (vi) parathyroid adenoma with family history of hyperparathyroidism or MEN1-associated tumors.142

Multiple endocrine neoplasia type II (OMIM 171400, 155240, and 162300)

Multiple endocrine neoplasia type II (MEN2) is caused by mutations in the RET gene and is characterized by increased risks for medullary thyroid cancer (MTC) (≤100%), pheochromocytomas (≤50%), and parathyroid disease (≤30%).143,144,145 As many as 25% of unselected individuals with MTC have a RET mutation.146 Individual series found that 4–11% of individuals with isolated MTC have a RET mutation.147,148,149 Genetic testing of individuals with nonsyndromic pheochromocytomas detected a RET mutation in 5% of these individuals in one study,150 but lower rates were found in other studies.93,95 RET testing is not indicated in apparently sporadic hyperparathyroidism in the absence of other clinical suspicion for MEN2 (ref. 134). MEN2A accounts for 80% of hereditary MTC syndromes.151 Families with MTC and no other MEN2-associated tumors are referred to as having familial medullary thyroid cancer.143,152 Familial medullary thyroid cancer accounts for 15% of hereditary MTC syndromes.151 MEN2B accounts for 5% of hereditary MTC syndromes and is a more severe type of MEN2, differentiated by the presence of benign oral and submucosal neuromas and a distinct appearance (tall and lanky with an elongated face and large lips).151 Of individuals with MEN2B, 40% have diffuse ganglioneuromatosis of the GI tract. The large majority of patients with MEN2B have mutations in exon 16 (M918T) and, less often, in exon 15 (A883F). There are genotype–phenotype correlations between the specific mutation in RET and the various clinical features.

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) MTC; (ii) pheochromocytoma; (iii) oral or ocular neuromas (lips, tongue, sclera, or eyelids); or (iv) diffuse ganglioneuromatosis of the GI tract.

MUTYH-associated polyposis (OMIM 608456)

MUTYH-associated polyposis is a recessive condition caused by biallelic mutations in the MUTYH gene and is characterized by an increased risk for adenomatous colon polyps and colorectal cancer (80%).153 Individuals with MUTYH-associated polyposis can develop only a few adenomatous colon polyps or they can have >100 adenomatous colon polyps.38,154 As a result, this condition can overlap with FAP, attenuated FAP, and LS. Testing is often ordered for both APC and MUTYH at the same time for patients with ≥10 adenomatous colon polyps. MUTYH testing might also be appropriate for patients with colorectal cancer diagnosed before age 50 after LS has been ruled out (the tumor exhibits mismatch repair proficiency), as 0.8–6% have biallelic MUTYH mutations.155,156,157,158 Biallelic MUTYH mutations are found in 2% of patients with ≥1,000 adenomas, 7% of patients with 100–999 adenomas, 7% of patients with 20–99 adenomas, and 4% of patients with 10–19 adenomas.37

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) ≥10 cumulative adenomatous colon polyps with or without colorectal cancer or (ii) mismatch repair proficient (microsatellite stable and/or normal mismatch repair protein based on immunohistochemical staining) colorectal cancer diagnosed before age 50.

Nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome (OMIM 109400)

Nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome is caused by mutations in the PTCH gene and is characterized by the presence of multiple jaw keratocysts beginning in the teens and multiple basal-cell carcinomas beginning in the 20s. Physical features such as macrocephaly, bossing of the forehead, coarse facial features, facial milia, and skeletal anomalies are present in most individuals with nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome (Table 7). Less common features include cardiac fibromas (2%), ovarian fibromas (20%), medulloblastoma (primitive neuroectodermal tumor; 5%). The diagnosis is made clinically when an individual has two major diagnostic criteria and one minor diagnostic criterion or one major and three minor diagnostic criteria159,160,161 (Table 7).

Table 7: Nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome criteria

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with any two criteria from the major or minor diagnostic criteria lists (Table 7).

Peutz–Jeghers syndrome (OMIM 175200)

Peutz–Jeghers syndrome (PJS) is caused by mutations in the STK11 gene and is characterized by mucocutaneous hyperpigmentation of the mouth, lips, nose, eyes, genitalia, or fingers; multiple hamartomatous polyps in the GI tract; and increased risks for colorectal (39% between ages 15 and 64), pancreatic (36%), gastric (29%), and small intestinal (13%) cancers. In addition, there are increased risks for breast cancer (54%), ovarian sex cord tumors with annular tubules (21%), and adenoma malignum of the cervix (10%) and the testes, especially Sertoli cell tumors (9%).162 PJ polyps are hamartomatous with glandular epithelium supported by smooth muscle cells contiguous with the muscularis mucosa.

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) two or more histologically confirmed PJ GI polyps; (ii) one or more PJ GI polyp and mucocutanous hyperpigmentation; (iii) ovarian sex cord tumor with annular tubules; (iv) adenoma malignum of the cervix; (v) Sertoli cell tumor; (vi) pancreatic cancer and one or more PJ GI polyp; (vii) breast cancer and one or more PJ GI polyp; or (viii) one or more PJ polyp and a positive family history of PJS.

Rhabdoid tumor predisposition syndrome types I and II (OMIM 609322 and 613325)

Rhabdoid tumor predisposition syndrome is characterized by an increased risk for rhabdoid tumors (rare and aggressive tumors of children). Rhabdoid tumor predisposition syndrome type I is caused by mutations in the SMARCB1 gene. Germline mutations in the SMARCB1 gene occurred in 35% (26/115 and 35/100) of patients with apparently sporadic childhood rhabdoid tumors.163,164 Only 10 of 61 parents harbored the germline mutation in both series combined, indicating a high proportion of germ cell mosaicism or de novo mutations in rhabdoid tumor predisposition syndrome type I.163,164 Rhabdoid tumor predisposition syndrome type II is caused by mutations in the SMARCA4 gene. In two small series of apparently nonfamilial small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type (which is a rare, aggressive rhabdoid tumor affecting children and young women), germline mutations in SMARCA4 were found in 29% (2/7)165 and 50% (6/12)166 of cases.

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with a rhabdoid tumor, including small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type.

Serrated polyposis syndrome (not in OMIM)

Serrated polyposis syndrome is a syndrome characterized by serrated polyps (SPs) and an increased risk for colorectal cancer. SPs can be difficult to diagnose and include hyperplastic polyps, sessile SPs, or adenomas, as well as traditional serrated adenomas. For these guidelines we adopt the 2012 National Comprehensive Cancer Network modification (http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_colon.pdf) of the 2000 World Health Organization criteria167 for the diagnosis of serrated polyposis syndrome. No causative mutations in BMPR1A, SMAD4, PTEN, MUTYH, or GREM1 were found in a series of 65 individuals with serrated polyposis syndrome; it is likely that this condition is caused by novel genes that have yet to be discovered.168 Although genetic testing may not be useful at present, a genetics referral is indicated because the diagnosis will affect future management, and other polyposis syndromes should be ruled out.

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) at least 5 SPs proximal to the sigmoid colon, 2 of which are >1cm in diameter, (ii) >20 SPs throughout the large bowel,38,169 or (iii) any number of SPs proximal to the sigmoid colon and a positive family history of serrated polyposis syndrome.

Tuberous sclerosis complex (OMIM 191100)

Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) is caused by mutations in the TSC1 and TSC2 genes and is characterized by brain, kidney, and heart tumors, as well as skin and neurological abnormalities, among others170,171 (Table 8). Brain lesions in TSC are complex and include subependymal nodules, cortical hamartomas, areas of focal cortical hypoplasia, and heterotopic gray matter.171,172 When cerebral cortical dysplasia and cerebral white matter migration lines occur together, they should be counted as one rather than two features of TSC.170,171 Renal lesions (angiomyolipomas and/or cysts) are usually present during childhood, and prevalence increases with age.171 About two-thirds of newborns with TSC have one or more cardiac rhabdomyomas; they are largest during the neonatal period and regress with time.173 Skin lesions occur in nearly 100% of individuals, although none are pathognomonic.170 Retinal lesions are present in 87% of individuals with TSC but may be difficult to detect without dilating the pupils and using indirect ophthalmoscopy.171,174 Interestingly, two-thirds to three-fourths of individuals with TSC have de novo mutations.171 Clinical diagnostic criteria involve combinations of major and minor criteria170,171 (Table 8). We recommend referral for anyone meeting any two criteria from the major or minor diagnostic criteria lists.

Table 8: Tuberous sclerosis complex criteria

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with any two criteria from the major or minor diagnostic criteria lists in the same person170,171 (Table 8).

Von Hippel–Lindau syndrome (OMIM 193300)

Von Hippel–Lindau syndrome is caused by mutations in the VHL gene and is characterized by RCC (clear cell histology), hemangioblastomas, pheochromocytomas, and endolymphatic sac tumors. Simplex cases of central nervous system hemangioblastoma, pheochromocytoma, and endolymphatic sac tumor are each sufficient to warrant genetic counseling referral. VHL mutations are detected in 10–40% of individuals with isolated central nervous system hemangioblastoma,175 46% of those with isolated retinal capillary hemangioma,176 3–11% of those with isolated pheochromocytoma,93,95,96,150,175,177,178 and about 20% of those with an endolymphatic sac tumor.179,180,181,182,183 Single cases of unilateral, unifocal RCC diagnosed at or after age 50 are insufficient to warrant referral to genetic counseling.175,184

Referral should be considered for any individual with a personal history of or first-degree relative with (i) clear cell RCC if he or she (a) has bilateral or multifocal tumors, (b) is diagnosed before age 50, or (c) has a close relative with clear cell RCC; (ii) central nervous system hemangioblastoma; (iii) pheochromocytoma; (iv) endolymphatic sac tumor, or (v) retinal capillary hemangioma.

Summary

This document suggests referral guidelines for 28 of the most common hereditary cancer susceptibility syndromes. The tables are meant to aid busy clinicians, enabling them to quickly search by cancer type (Table 1 includes common cancers, Table 2 includes rare benign and malignant tumors) to find appropriate referral criteria for the various syndromes detailed throughout this guideline. After locating the cancer of interest in the table, practitioners can learn more about the associated syndrome by looking it up in the text of this document. We recommend that patients (or their affected relatives) meeting any of the cancer genetics referral criteria be referred to a cancer genetics specialist. To find a cancer genetics expert, visit the National Cancer Institute Cancer Genetics Services Directory (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/genetics/directory), the National Society of Genetic Counselors website (http://www.nsgc.org; use the “Find a Genetic Counselor” feature), or the American College of Genetics and Genomics website (http://www.acmg.net; use the “Find Genetic Services” feature).

Disclosure

H.H. has received grant support from Myriad Genetic Laboratories in the form of donated genetic testing she has received honoraria for speaking from Quest Diagnostics, InVitae Genetics, and Myriad Genetic Laboratories in the past 3 years. This has not impacted the referral guidelines. A.B. has received National Institutes of Health funding but reports that it does not conflict with the content of this practice guideline. R.P. has received grant support from Myriad Genetic Laboratories in the form of donated genetic testing G.W. was supported by institutional funds from the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. A.B., G.W., and R.L.B. declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bensend TA, Veach PM, Niendorf KB. What’s the harm? Genetic counselor perceptions of adverse effects of genetics service provision by non-genetics professionals. J Genet Couns 2014;23:4863.
  2. Brierley KL, Blouch E, Cogswell W, et al. Adverse events in cancer genetic testing: medical, ethical, legal, and financial implications. Cancer J 2012;18:303309.
  3. Miller CE, Krautscheid P, Baldwin EE, et al. Genetic counselor review of genetic test orders in a reference laboratory reduces unnecessary testing. Am J Med Genet A 2014;164A:10941101.
  4. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement: hereditary colorectal cancer and genetic testing. Gastroenterol 2001;121:195197.
  5. American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:23972406.
  6. US Preventive Services Task Force. Genetic risk assessment and BRCA mutation testing for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility: recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:355361.
  7. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology; ACOG Committee on Genetics; Society of Gynecologic Oncologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 103: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:957966.
  8. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genet Med 2009;11:3541.
  9. Acheson LS, Wiesner GL, Zyzanski SJ, Goodwin MA, Stange KC. Family history-taking in community family practice: implications for genetic screening. Genet Med 2000;2:180185.
  10. Blumenthal D, Causino N, Chang YC, et al. The duration of ambulatory visits to physicians. J Fam Pract 1999;48:264271.
  11. Wattendorf DJ, Hadley DW. Family history: the three-generation pedigree. Am Fam Physician 2005;72:441448.
  12. Qureshi N, Wilson B, Santaguida P, Carroll J, Allanson J, Ruiz Culebro C, Brouwers M, Raina P. Collection and Use of Cancer Family History in Primary Care. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 159 (prepared by the McMaster University Evidence-based Practice Center, under Contract No. 290-02-0020). AHRQ Publication No. 08-E001. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. October 2007
  13. Hampel H, Sweet K, Westman JA, Offit K, Eng C. Referral for cancer genetics consultation: a review and compilation of risk assessment criteria. J Med Genet 2004;41:8191.
  14. Lindor NM, McMaster ML, Lindor CJ, Greene MH. Concise handbook of familial cancer susceptibility syndromes - second edition. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2008;2008:193.
  15. Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome. McGarrity TJ, Amos CI, Frazier ML, Wei C. In: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Bird TD, Dolan CR, Fong CT, Smith RJH, Stephens K, editors. GeneReviews® [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993-2014. 2001. Feb 23 [updated 2013 Jul 25]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20301443. PMID:20301443. Accessed 20 June 2013.
  16. Toro JR, Pautler SE, Stewart L, et al. Lung cysts, spontaneous pneumothorax, and genetic associations in 89 families with Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007;175:10441053.
  17. Chiu HT, Garcia CK. Familial spontaneous pneumothorax. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2006;12:268272.
  18. Bertherat J, Horvath A, Groussin L, et al. Mutations in regulatory subunit type 1A of cyclic adenosine 5’-monophosphate-dependent protein kinase (PRKAR1A): phenotype analysis in 353 patients and 80 different genotypes. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2009;94:20852091.
  19. Groussin L, Jullian E, Perlemoine K, et al. Mutations of the PRKAR1A gene in Cushing’s syndrome due to sporadic primary pigmented nodular adrenocortical disease. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2002;87:43244329.
  20. Groussin L, Kirschner LS, Vincent-Dejean C, et al. Molecular analysis of the cyclic AMP-dependent protein kinase A (PKA) regulatory subunit 1A (PRKAR1A) gene in patients with Carney complex and primary pigmented nodular adrenocortical disease (PPNAD) reveals novel mutations and clues for pathophysiology: augmented PKA signaling is associated with adrenal tumorigenesis in PPNAD. Am J Hum Genet 2002;71:14331442.
  21. Stratakis CA, Kirschner LS, Carney JA. Clinical and molecular features of the Carney complex: diagnostic criteria and recommendations for patient evaluation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:40414046.
  22. Ripperger T, Beger C, Rahner N, et al. Constitutional mismatch repair deficiency and childhood leukemia/lymphoma–report on a novel biallelic MSH6 mutation. Haematologica 2010;95:841844.
  23. Wimmer K, Kratz CP. Constitutional mismatch repair-deficiency syndrome. Haematologica 2010;95:699701.
  24. Bubien V, Bonnet F, Brouste V, et al.; French Cowden Disease Network. High cumulative risks of cancer in patients with PTEN hamartoma tumour syndrome. J Med Genet 2013;50:255263.
  25. Tan MH, Mester JL, Ngeow J, Rybicki LA, Orloff MS, Eng C. Lifetime cancer risks in individuals with germline PTEN mutations. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:400407.
  26. PTEN Hamartoma Tumor Syndrome (PHTS). Eng C. In: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Bird TD, Dolan CR, Fong CT, Smith RJH,Stephens K, editors. GeneReviews® [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993-2014. 2001. Nov 29 [updated 2014 Jan 23]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20301661. PMID: 20301661.
  27. Pilarski R, Stephens JA, Noss R, Fisher JL, Prior TW. Predicting PTEN mutations: an evaluation of Cowden syndrome and Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome clinical features. J Med Genet 2011;48:505512.
  28. Heald B, Mester J, Rybicki L, Orloff MS, Burke CA, Eng C. Frequent gastrointestinal polyps and colorectal adenocarcinomas in a prospective series of PTEN mutation carriers. Gastroenterology 2010;139:19271933.
  29. Pilarski R, Burt R, Kohlman W, Pho L, Shannon KM, Swisher E. Cowden syndrome and the PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome: systematic review and revised diagnostic criteria. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105:16071616.
  30. Zhou XP, Marsh DJ, Morrison CD, et al. Germline inactivation of PTEN and dysregulation of the phosphoinositol-3-kinase/Akt pathway cause human Lhermitte-Duclos disease in adults. Am J Hum Genet 2003;73:11911198.
  31. Eng C. Will the real Cowden syndrome please stand up: revised diagnostic criteria. J Med Genet 2000;37:828830.
  32. Neklason DW, Stevens J, Boucher KM, et al. American founder mutation for attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;6:4652.
  33. Donnellan KA, Bigler SA, Wein RO. Papillary thyroid carcinoma and familial adenomatous polyposis of the colon. Am J Otolaryngol 2009;30:5860.
  34. Harach HR, Williams GT, Williams ED. Familial adenomatous polyposis associated thyroid carcinoma: a distinct type of follicular cell neoplasm. Histopathology 1994;25:549561.
  35. Giardiello FM, Petersen GM, Brensinger JD, et al. Hepatoblastoma and APC gene mutation in familial adenomatous polyposis. Gut 1996;39:867869.
  36. Nieuwenhuis MH, Vasen HF. Correlations between mutation site in APC and phenotype of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP): a review of the literature. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2007;61:153161.
  37. Grover S, Kastrinos F, Steyerberg EW, et al. Prevalence and phenotypes of APC and MUTYH mutations in patients with multiple colorectal adenomas. JAMA 2012;308:485492.
  38. Aretz S. The differential diagnosis and surveillance of hereditary gastrointestinal polyposis syndromes. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2010;107:163173.
  39. Janeway KA, Kim SY, Lodish M, et al.; NIH Pediatric and Wild-Type GIST Clinic. Defects in succinate dehydrogenase in gastrointestinal stromal tumors lacking KIT and PDGFRA mutations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;108:314318.
  40. Oudijk L, Gaal J, Korpershoek E, et al. SDHA mutations in adult and pediatric wild-type gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Mod Pathol 2013;26:456463.
  41. Couch FJ, Johnson MR, Rabe KG, et al. The prevalence of BRCA2 mutations in familial pancreatic cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16:342346.
  42. Hahn SA, Greenhalf B, Ellis I, et al. BRCA2 germline mutations in familial pancreatic carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:214221.
  43. Murphy KM, Brune KA, Griffin C, et al. Evaluation of candidate genes MAP2K4, MADH4, ACVR1B, and BRCA2 in familial pancreatic cancer: deleterious BRCA2 mutations in 17%. Cancer Res 2002;62:37893793.
  44. Slater EP, Langer P, Fendrich V, et al. Prevalence of BRCA2 and CDKN2a mutations in German familial pancreatic cancer families. Fam Cancer 2010;9:335343.
  45. Ferrone CR, Levine DA, Tang LH, et al. BRCA germline mutations in Jewish patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:433438.
  46. Lal G, Liu G, Schmocker B, et al. Inherited predisposition to pancreatic adenocarcinoma: role of family history and germ-line p16, BRCA1, and BRCA2 mutations. Cancer Res 2000;60:409416.
  47. Ozçelik H, Schmocker B, Di Nicola N, et al. Germline BRCA2 6174delT mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish pancreatic cancer patients. Nat Genet 1997;16:1718.
  48. Jones S, Hruban RH, Kamiyama M, et al. Exomic sequencing identifies PALB2 as a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene. Science 2009;324:217.
  49. Slater EP, Langer P, Niemczyk E, et al. PALB2 mutations in European familial pancreatic cancer families. Clin Genet 2010;78:490494.
  50. Tischkowitz MD, Sabbaghian N, Hamel N, et al. Analysis of the gene coding for the BRCA2-interacting protein PALB2 in familial and sporadic pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology 2009;137:11831186.
  51. Roberts NJ, Jiao Y, Yu J, et al. ATM mutations in patients with hereditary pancreatic cancer. Cancer Discov 2012;2:4146.
  52. Carter BS, Bova GS, Beaty TH, et al. Hereditary prostate cancer: epidemiologic and clinical features. J Urol 1993;150:797802.
  53. Ewing CM, Ray AM, Lange EM, et al. Germline mutations in HOXB13 and prostate-cancer risk. N Engl J Med 2012;366:141149.
  54. Karlsson R, Aly M, Clements M, et al. A population-based assessment of germline HOXB13 G84E mutation and prostate cancer risk. Eur Urol 2014;65:169176.
  55. Xu J, Lange EM, Lu L, et al.; International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics. HOXB13 is a susceptibility gene for prostate cancer: results from the International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics (ICPCG). Hum Genet 2013;132:514.
  56. Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Timms KM, Liu S, et al. Incidence and outcome of BRCA mutations in unselected patients with triple receptor-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17:10821089.
  57. Young SR, Pilarski RT, Donenberg T, et al. The prevalence of BRCA1 mutations among young women with triple-negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2009;9:86.
  58. Fostira F, Tsitlaidou M, Papadimitriou C, et al. Prevalence of BRCA1 mutations among 403 women with triple-negative breast cancer: implications for genetic screening selection criteria: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group Study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012;134:353362.
  59. Greenup R, Buchanan A, Lorizio W, et al. Prevalence of BRCA mutations among women with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in a genetic counseling cohort. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:32543258.
  60. Risch HA, McLaughlin JR, Cole DE, et al. Population BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation frequencies and cancer penetrances: a kin-cohort study in Ontario, Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98:16941706.
  61. Risch HA, McLaughlin JR, Cole DE, et al. Prevalence and penetrance of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population series of 649 women with ovarian cancer. Am J Hum Genet 2001;68:700710.
  62. Walsh T, Casadei S, Lee MK, et al. Mutations in 12 genes for inherited ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma identified by massively parallel sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2011;108:1803218037.
  63. Liede A, Karlan BY, Narod SA. Cancer risks for male carriers of germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2: a review of the literature. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:735742.
  64. Neuhausen S, Gilewski T, Norton L, et al. Recurrent BRCA2 6174delT mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish women affected by breast cancer. Nat Genet 1996;13:126128.
  65. Offit K, Gilewski T, McGuire P, et al. Germline BRCA1 185delAG mutations in Jewish women with breast cancer. Lancet 1996;347:16431645.
  66. Roa BB, Boyd AA, Volcik K, Richards CS. Ashkenazi Jewish population frequencies for common mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Nat Genet 1996;14:185187.
  67. Struewing JP, Abeliovich D, Peretz T, et al. The carrier frequency of the BRCA1 185delAG mutation is approximately 1 percent in Ashkenazi Jewish individuals. Nat Genet 1995;11:198200.
  68. Johannesdottir G, Gudmundsson J, Bergthorsson JT, et al. High prevalence of the 999del5 mutation in icelandic breast and ovarian cancer patients. Cancer Res 1996;56:36633665.
  69. Weitzel JN, Lagos VI, Herzog JS, et al. Evidence for common ancestral origin of a recurring BRCA1 genomic rearrangement identified in high-risk Hispanic families. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16:16151620.
  70. Castro E, Goh C, Olmos D, et al. Germline BRCA mutations are associated with higher risk of nodal involvement, distant metastasis, and poor survival outcomes in prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2013;31:17481757.
  71. Mitra A, Fisher C, Foster CS, et al.; IMPACT and EMBRACE Collaborators. Prostate cancer in male BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers has a more aggressive phenotype. Br J Cancer 2008;98:502507.
  72. Seevaratnam R, Coburn N, Cardoso R, Dixon M, Bocicariu A, Helyer L. A systematic review of the indications for genetic testing and prophylactic gastrectomy among patients with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2012;15(suppl 1):S153S163.
  73. Fitzgerald RC, Hardwick R, Huntsman D, et al.; International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium. Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: updated consensus guidelines for clinical management and directions for future research. J Med Genet 2010;47:436444.
  74. Alam NA, Rowan AJ, Wortham NC, et al. Genetic and functional analyses of FH mutations in multiple cutaneous and uterine leiomyomatosis, hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cancer, and fumarate hydratase deficiency. Hum Mol Genet 2003;12:12411252.
  75. Martinez-Mir A, Glaser B, Chuang GS, et al. Germline fumarate hydratase mutations in families with multiple cutaneous and uterine leiomyomata. J Invest Dermatol 2003;121:741744.
  76. Tomlinson IP, Alam NA, Rowan AJ, et al.; Multiple Leiomyoma Consortium. Germline mutations in FH predispose to dominantly inherited uterine fibroids, skin leiomyomata and papillary renal cell cancer. Nat Genet 2002;30:406410.
  77. Toro JR, Nickerson ML, Wei MH, et al. Mutations in the fumarate hydratase gene cause hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer in families in North America. Am J Hum Genet 2003;73:95106.
  78. Wei MH, Toure O, Glenn GM, et al. Novel mutations in FH and expansion of the spectrum of phenotypes expressed in families with hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer. J Med Genet 2006;43:1827.
  79. Ponti G, Pellacani G, Seidenari S, Pollio A, Muscatello U, Tomasi A. Cancer-associated genodermatoses: skin neoplasms as clues to hereditary tumor syndromes. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2013;85:239256.
  80. Gardie B, Remenieras A, Kattygnarath D, et al.; French National Cancer Institute “Inherited predisposition to kidney cancer” network. Novel FH mutations in families with hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC) and patients with isolated type 2 papillary renal cell carcinoma. J Med Genet 2011;48:226234.
  81. Alam NA, Olpin S, Leigh IM. Fumarate hydratase mutations and predisposition to cutaneous leiomyomas, uterine leiomyomas and renal cancer. Br J Dermatol 2005;153:1117.
  82. Mize DE, Bishop M, Resse E, Sluzevich J. Familial atypical multiple mole melanoma syndrome. In: Riegert-Johnson DL, Boardman LA, Hefferon T, Roberts M (eds). Cancer Syndromes [Internet]. National Center for Biotechnology Information: Bethesda, MD, 2009.
  83. Begg CB, Orlow I, Hummer AJ, et al.; Genes Environment and Melanoma Study Group. Lifetime risk of melanoma in CDKN2A mutation carriers in a population-based sample. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:15071515.
  84. Bishop DT, Demenais F, Goldstein AM, et al.; Melanoma Genetics Consortium. Geographical variation in the penetrance of CDKN2A mutations for melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:894903.
  85. Cannon-Albright LA, Meyer LJ, Goldgar DE, et al. Penetrance and expressivity of the chromosome 9p melanoma susceptibility locus (MLM). Cancer Res 1994;54:60416044.
  86. Goldstein AM, Chan M, Harland M, et al.; Melanoma Genetics Consortium (GenoMEL). High-risk melanoma susceptibility genes and pancreatic cancer, neural system tumors, and uveal melanoma across GenoMEL. Cancer Res 2006;66:98189828.
  87. Bartsch DK, Langer P, Habbe N, et al. Clinical and genetic analysis of 18 pancreatic carcinoma/melanoma-prone families. Clin Genet 2010;77:333341.
  88. Cao X, Eu KW, Kumarasinghe MP, Li HH, Loi C, Cheah PY. Mapping of hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome (HMPS) to chromosome 10q23 by genomewide high-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) scan and identification of BMPR1A loss of function. J Med Genet 2006;43:e13.
  89. Cheah PY, Wong YH, Chau YP, et al. Germline bone morphogenesis protein receptor 1A mutation causes colorectal tumorigenesis in hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:30273033.
  90. O’Riordan JM, O’Donoghue D, Green A, et al. Hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome due to a BMPR1A mutation. Colorectal Dis 2010;12:570573.
  91. Jaeger E, Leedham S, Lewis A, et al. Hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome is caused by a 40-kb upstream duplication that leads to increased and ectopic expression of the BMP antagonist GREM1. Nat Genet 2012;44:699703.
  92. Schmidt L, Junker K, Nakaigawa N, et al. Novel mutations of the MET proto-oncogene in papillary renal carcinomas. Oncogene 1999;18:23432350.
  93. Amar L, Bertherat J, Baudin E, et al. Genetic testing in pheochromocytoma or functional paraganglioma. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:88128818.
  94. Badenhop RF, Jansen JC, Fagan PA, et al. The prevalence of SDHB, SDHC, and SDHD mutations in patients with head and neck paraganglioma and association of mutations with clinical features. J Med Genet 2004;41:e99.
  95. Erlic Z, Neumann HP. When should genetic testing be obtained in a patient with phaeochromocytoma or paraganglioma? Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2009;70:354357.
  96. Mannelli M. Biochemistry, genetics and therapy of malignant pheochromocytomas. Ann Endocrinol (Paris) 2009;70:166167.
  97. Neumann HP, Erlic Z, Boedeker CC, et al. Clinical predictors for germline mutations in head and neck paraganglioma patients: cost reduction strategy in genetic diagnostic process as fall-out. Cancer Res 2009;69:36503656.
  98. Neumann HP, Pawlu C, Peczkowska M, et al.; European-American Paraganglioma Study Group. Distinct clinical features of paraganglioma syndromes associated with SDHB and SDHD gene mutations. JAMA 2004;292:943951.
  99. Draper GJ, Sanders BM, Brownbill PA, Hawkins MM. Patterns of risk of hereditary retinoblastoma and applications to genetic counselling. Br J Cancer 1992;66:211219.
  100. Kivelä T. Trilateral retinoblastoma: a meta-analysis of hereditary retinoblastoma associated with primary ectopic intracranial retinoblastoma. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:18291837.
  101. Kleinerman RA, Tucker MA, Abramson DH, Seddon JM, Tarone RE, Fraumeni JF Jr. Risk of soft tissue sarcomas by individual subtype in survivors of hereditary retinoblastoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:2431.
  102. Moll AC, Imhof SM, Bouter LM, Tan KE. Second primary tumors in patients with retinoblastoma. A review of the literature. Ophthalmic Genet 1997;18:2734.
  103. Howe JR, Haidle JL. Juvenile polyposis syndrome. In: Pagon R, Bird T, Dolon C, eds. GeneReviews [Internet]. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 2008. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1469/#jps.REF.aretz.2007.702. Accessed 20 December 2010.
  104. Howe JR, Roth S, Ringold JC, et al. Mutations in the SMAD4/DPC4 gene in juvenile polyposis. Science 1998;280:10861088.
  105. Latchford AR, Neale K, Phillips RK, Clark SK. Juvenile polyposis syndrome: a study of genotype, phenotype, and long-term outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 2012;55:10381043.
  106. Aretz S, Stienen D, Uhlhaas S, et al. High proportion of large genomic deletions and a genotype phenotype update in 80 unrelated families with juvenile polyposis syndrome. J Med Genet 2007;44:702709.
  107. Gallione CJ, Repetto GM, Legius E, et al. A combined syndrome of juvenile polyposis and hereditary haemorrhagic telangiectasia associated with mutations in MADH4 (SMAD4). Lancet 2004;363:852859.
  108. Giardiello FM, Hamilton SR, Kern SE, et al. Colorectal neoplasia in juvenile polyposis or juvenile polyps. Arch Dis Child 1991;66:971975.
  109. Jass JR, Williams CB, Bussey HJ, Morson BC. Juvenile polyposis–a precancerous condition. Histopathology 1988;13:619630.
  110. Nugent KP, Talbot IC, Hodgson SV, Phillips RK. Solitary juvenile polyps: not a marker for subsequent malignancy. Gastroenterology 1993;105:698700.
  111. Ognjanovic S, Olivier M, Bergemann TL, Hainaut P. Sarcomas in TP53 germline mutation carriers: a review of the IARC TP53 database. Cancer 2012;118:13871396.
  112. Gonzalez KD, Noltner KA, Buzin CH, et al. Beyond Li Fraumeni Syndrome: clinical characteristics of families with p53 germline mutations. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:12501256.
  113. Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. Schneider K, Zelley K, Nichols KE, Garber J. In: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Bird TD, Dolan CR, Fong CT, Smith RJH, Stephens K, editors. GeneReviews® [Internet] Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993-2014. 1999. Jan 19 [updated 2013 Apr 11]. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20301488. PMID:20301488.
  114. Libé R, Bertherat J. Molecular genetics of adrenocortical tumours, from familial to sporadic diseases. Eur J Endocrinol 2005;153:477487.
  115. Varley JM, McGown G, Thorncroft M, et al. Are there low-penetrance TP53 alleles? Evidence from childhood adrenocortical tumors. Am J Hum Genet 1999;65:9951006.
  116. Hwang SJ, Lozano G, Amos CI, Strong LC. Germline p53 mutations in a cohort with childhood sarcoma: sex differences in cancer risk. Am J Hum Genet 2003;72:975983.
  117. Ruijs MW, Verhoef S, Rookus MA, et al. TP53 germline mutation testing in 180 families suspected of Li-Fraumeni syndrome: mutation detection rate and relative frequency of cancers in different familial phenotypes. J Med Genet 2010;47:421428.
  118. Bougeard G, Sesboüé R, Baert-Desurmont S, et al.; French LFS working group. Molecular basis of the Li-Fraumeni syndrome: an update from the French LFS families. J Med Genet 2008;45:535538.
  119. Chompret A, Abel A, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, et al. Sensitivity and predictive value of criteria for p53 germline mutation screening. J Med Genet 2001;38:4347.
  120. Aarnio M, Sankila R, Pukkala E, et al. Cancer risk in mutation carriers of DNA-mismatch-repair genes. Int J Cancer 1999;81:214218.
  121. Bonadona V, Bonaïti B, Olschwang S, et al.; French Cancer Genetics Network. Cancer risks associated with germline mutations in MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 genes in Lynch syndrome. JAMA 2011;305:23042310.
  122. Hampel H, Stephens JA, Pukkala E, et al. Cancer risk in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: later age of onset. Gastroenterology 2005;129:415421.
  123. Jenkins MA, Baglietto L, Dowty JG, et al. Cancer risks for mismatch repair gene mutation carriers: a population-based early onset case-family study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4:489498.
  124. Salovaara R, Loukola A, Kristo P, et al. Population-based molecular detection of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:21932200.
  125. Senter L, Clendenning M, Sotamaa K, et al. The clinical phenotype of Lynch syndrome due to germ-line PMS2 mutations. Gastroenterology 2008;135:419428.
  126. Palomaki GE, McClain MR, Melillo S, Hampel HL, Thibodeau SN. EGAPP supplementary evidence review: DNA testing strategies aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome. Genet Med 2009;11:4265.
  127. Boland CR, Thibodeau SN, Hamilton SR, et al. A National Cancer Institute Workshop on Microsatellite Instability for cancer detection and familial predisposition: development of international criteria for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 1998;58:52485257.
  128. Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP, et al. Revised Bethesda Guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:261268.
  129. Vasen HF, Mecklin JP, Khan PM, Lynch HT. The International Collaborative Group on Hereditary Non-Polyposis Colorectal Cancer (ICG-HNPCC). Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:424425.
  130. Vasen HF, Watson P, Mecklin JP, Lynch HT. New clinical criteria for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC, Lynch syndrome) proposed by the International Collaborative group on HNPCC. Gastroenterology 1999;116:14531456.
  131. Aaltonen LA, Salovaara R, Kristo P, et al. Incidence of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer and the feasibility of molecular screening for the disease. N Engl J Med 1998;338:14811487.
  132. Hampel H, Frankel WL, Martin E, et al. Feasibility of screening for Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:57835788.
  133. Hampel H, Frankel WL, Martin E, et al. Screening for the Lynch syndrome (hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer). N Engl J Med 2005;352:18511860.
  134. Brandi ML, Gagel RF, Angeli A, et al. Guidelines for diagnosis and therapy of MEN type 1 and type 2. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2001;86:56585671.
  135. Odou MF, Cardot-Bauters C, Vantyghem MC, et al. Contribution of genetic analysis in screening for MEN1 among patients with sporadic disease and one or more typical manifestation. Ann Endocrinol (Paris) 2006;67:581587.
  136. Marx SJ. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. In: Scriver C, Beaudet A, Sly W, Valle D (eds). The Metabolic and Molecular Basis of Inherited Disease. 8th edn. McGraw-Hill: New York, 2001:943966.
  137. Schmidt MC, Henke RT, Stangl AP, et al. Analysis of the MEN1 gene in sporadic pituitary adenomas. J Pathol 1999;188:168173.
  138. Skandarajah A, Barlier A, Morlet-Barlat N, et al. Should routine analysis of the MEN1 gene be performed in all patients with primary hyperparathyroidism under 40 years of age? World J Surg 2010;34:12941298.
  139. Uchino S, Noguchi S, Sato M, et al. Screening of the Men1 gene and discovery of germ-line and somatic mutations in apparently sporadic parathyroid tumors. Cancer Res 2000;60:55535557.
  140. Thakker RV, Newey PJ, Walls GV, et al.; Endocrine Society. Clinical practice guidelines for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1). J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012;97:29903011.
  141. Falchetti A. Genetic screening for multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 1 (MEN-1): when and how. F1000 Med Rep 2010; e-pub 24 February 2010.
  142. Kihara M, Miyauchi A, Ito Y, et al. MEN1 gene analysis in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism: 10-year experience of a single institution for thyroid and parathyroid care in Japan. Endocr J 2009;56:649656.
  143. Eng C, Clayton D, Schuffenecker I, et al. The relationship between specific RET proto-oncogene mutations and disease phenotype in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2. International RET mutation consortium analysis. JAMA 1996;276:15751579.
  144. Lefebvre M, Foulkes WD. Pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma syndromes: genetics and management update. Curr Oncol 2014;21:e8e17.
  145. Moline J, Eng C. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2. In: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Bird TD, Dolan CR, Fong CT, Stephens K (eds). GeneReviews. University of Washington: Seattle, WA, 1993.
  146. Richards ML. Thyroid cancer genetics: multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, non-medullary familial thyroid cancer, and familial syndromes associated with thyroid cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2009;18:3952, viii.
  147. Elisei R, Romei C, Cosci B, et al. RET genetic screening in patients with medullary thyroid cancer and their relatives: experience with 807 individuals at one center. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2007;92:47254729.
  148. Erdogan MF, Gürsoy A, Ozgen G, et al. Ret proto-oncogene mutations in apparently sporadic Turkish medullary thyroid carcinoma patients: Turkmen study. J Endocrinol Invest 2005;28:806809.
  149. Bugalho MJ, Domingues R, Santos JR, Catarino AL, Sobrinho L. Mutation analysis of the RET proto-oncogene and early thyroidectomy: results of a Portuguese cancer centre. Surgery 2007;141:9095.
  150. Neumann HP, Bausch B, McWhinney SR, et al.; Freiburg-Warsaw-Columbus Pheochromocytoma Study Group. Germ-line mutations in nonsyndromic pheochromocytoma. N Engl J Med 2002;346:14591466.
  151. Wells SA Jr, Pacini F, Robinson BG, Santoro M. Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 and familial medullary thyroid carcinoma: an update. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013;98:31493164.
  152. Kloos RT, Eng C, Evans DB, et al. Medullary thyroid cancer: management guidelines of the American Thyroid Association. Thyroid 2009;19:565612.
  153. Lipton L, Halford SE, Johnson V, et al. Carcinogenesis in MYH-associated polyposis follows a distinct genetic pathway. Cancer Res 2003;63:75957599.
  154. Goodenberger M, Lindor NM. Lynch syndrome and MYH-associated polyposis: review and testing strategy. J Clin Gastroenterol 2011;45:488500.
  155. Balaguer F, Castellví-Bel S, Castells A, et al.; Gastrointestinal Oncology Group of the Spanish Gastroenterological Association. Identification of MYH mutation carriers in colorectal cancer: a multicenter, case-control, population-based study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;5:379387.
  156. Lubbe SJ, Di Bernardo MC, Chandler IP, Houlston RS. Clinical implications of the colorectal cancer risk associated with MUTYH mutation. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:39753980.
  157. Riegert-Johnson DL, Johnson RA, Rabe KG, et al. The value of MUTYH testing in patients with early onset microsatellite stable colorectal cancer referred for hereditary nonpolyposis colon cancer syndrome testing. Genet Test 2007;11:361365.
  158. Wang L, Baudhuin LM, Boardman LA, et al. MYH mutations in patients with attenuated and classic polyposis and with young-onset colorectal cancer without polyps. Gastroenterology 2004;127:916.
  159. Evans DG, Farndon PA. Nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome. In: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH (eds).GeneReviews. University of Washington: Seattle, WA, 2002 (updated 7 March 2013) 2002.
  160. Evans DG, Ladusans EJ, Rimmer S, Burnell LD, Thakker N, Farndon PA. Complications of the naevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome: results of a population based study. J Med Genet 1993;30:460464.
  161. Kimonis VE, Goldstein AM, Pastakia B, et al. Clinical manifestations in 105 persons with nevoid basal cell carcinoma syndrome. Am J Med Genet 1997;69:299308.
  162. Giardiello FM, Brensinger JD, Tersmette AC, et al. Very high risk of cancer in familial Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Gastroenterology 2000;119:14471453.
  163. Bourdeaut F, Lequin D, Brugières L, et al. Frequent hSNF5/INI1 germline mutations in patients with rhabdoid tumor. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17:3138.
  164. Eaton KW, Tooke LS, Wainwright LM, Judkins AR, Biegel JA. Spectrum of SMARCB1/INI1 mutations in familial and sporadic rhabdoid tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2011;56:715.
  165. Ramos P, Karnezis AN, Craig DW, et al. Small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type, displays frequent inactivating germline and somatic mutations in SMARCA4. Nat Genet 2014;46:427429.
  166. Witkowski L, Carrot-Zhang J, Albrecht S, et al. Germline and somatic SMARCA4 mutations characterize small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type. Nat Genet 2014;46:438443.
  167. Burt R, Jass JR. Hyperplastic polyposis. In: Hamilton SR, Aaltonen LA (eds).Pathology and Genetics of Tumorurs of the Digestive System. ARC Press: Lyon, France, 2000:2065.
  168. Clendenning M, Young JP, Walsh MD, et al. Germline mutations in the polyposis-associated genes BMPR1A, SMAD4, PTEN, MUTYH and GREM1 are not common in individuals with serrated polyposis syndrome. PLoS One 2013;8:e66705.
  169. Burt RW, Jass J. Hyperplastic polyposis. In: Hamilton SR, Aaltonen LA (eds).World Health Organisation Classification of Tumours Pathology and Genetics. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2000:135136.
  170. Roach ES, Gomez MR, Northrup H. Tuberous sclerosis complex consensus conference: revised clinical diagnostic criteria. J Child Neurol 1998;13:624628.
  171. Roach ES, Sparagana SP. Diagnosis of tuberous sclerosis complex. J Child Neurol 2004;19:643649.
  172. Weiner DM, Ewalt DH, Roach ES, Hensle TW. The tuberous sclerosis complex: a comprehensive review. J Am Coll Surg 1998;187:548561.
  173. DiMario FJ Jr, Diana D, Leopold H, Chameides L. Evolution of cardiac rhabdomyoma in tuberous sclerosis complex. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1996;35:615619.
  174. Kiribuchi K, Uchida Y, Fukuyama Y, Maruyama H. High incidence of fundus hamartomas and clinical significance of a fundus score in tuberous sclerosis. Brain Dev 1986;8:509517.
  175. Richard S, David P, Marsot-Dupuch K, Giraud S, Beroud C, Resche F. Central nervous system hemangioblastomas, endolymphatic sac tumors, and von Hippel-Lindau disease. Neurosurg Rev 2000;23:122; discussion 23–24.
  176. Singh A, Shields J, Shields C. Solitary retinal capillary hemangioma: hereditary (von Hippel-Lindau disease) or nonhereditary? Arch Ophthalmol 2001;119:232234.
  177. Brauch H, Hoeppner W, Jähnig H, et al. Sporadic pheochromocytomas are rarely associated with germline mutations in the vhl tumor suppressor gene or the ret protooncogene. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1997;82:41014104.
  178. van der Harst E, de Krijger RR, Dinjens WN, et al. Germline mutations in the vhl gene in patients presenting with phaeochromocytomas. Int J Cancer 1998;77:337340.
  179. Gaffey MJ, Mills SE, Boyd JC. Aggressive papillary tumor of middle ear/temporal bone and adnexal papillary cystadenoma. Manifestations of von Hippel-Lindau disease. Am J Surg Pathol 1994;18:12541260.
  180. Irving RM. The molecular pathology of tumours of the ear and temporal bone. J Laryngol Otol 1998;112:10111018.
  181. Poe DS, Tarlov EC, Thomas CB, Kveton JF. Aggressive papillary tumors of temporal bone. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1993;108:8086.
  182. Tibbs RE Jr, Bowles AP Jr, Raila FA, Fratkin JD, Hutchins JB. Should endolymphatic sac tumors be considered part of the von Hippel-Lindau complex? Pathology case report. Neurosurgery 1997;40:848855; discussion 855.
  183. Megerian CA, McKenna MJ, Nuss RC, et al. Endolymphatic sac tumors: histopathologic confirmation, clinical characterization, and implication in von Hippel-Lindau disease. Laryngoscope 1995;105(8 Pt 1):801808.
  184. Neumann HP, Bender BU, Berger DP, et al. Prevalence, morphology and biology of renal cell carcinoma in von Hippel-Lindau disease compared to sporadic renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1998;160:12481254.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Document approved by the ACMG Board of Directors 31 July 2014. Document approved by the NSGC Board of Directors 25 August 2014.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Division of Human Genetics, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA

    • Heather Hampel &
    • Rachel Pearlman
  2. Genetic Medicine Clinic, Department of Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA

    • Robin L. Bennett
  3. Cancer Prevention, Detection and Control Research Program, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA

    • Adam Buchanan
  4. Clinical and Translational Hereditary Cancer Program, Division of Genetic Medicine, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

    • Georgia L. Wiesner
  5. ©2014 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and National Society of Genetic Counselors. All rights reserved. This document may not, in whole or in part, be reproduced, copied or disseminated, entered into or stored in a computer database or retrieval system, or otherwise utilized without the prior written consent of both the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

Additional data