Search

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The emerging association of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) with imprinting disorders represents a major issue in the scientific debate on infertility treatment and human procreation. We studied the prevalence of Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS) in children conceived through ART to define the specific associated relative risk. METHODS: Patients with BWS born in Piemonte, Italy, were identified and matched with the general demographic data and corresponding regional ART registry. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2014, live births in Piemonte were 379 872, including 7884 from ART. Thirty-eight patients with BWS were born, 7 from ART and 31 naturally conceived. BWS birth prevalence in the ART group was significantly higher than that of the naturally conceived group (1:1126 vs 1:12 254, P < .001). The absolute live birth risk in the ART group was 887.9 per 1 000 000 vs 83.3 per 1 000 000 in the naturally conceived group, providing a relative risk of 10.7 (95% confidence interval 4.7–24.2). During the 1997–2014 period, 67 patients were diagnosed with BWS out of 663 834 newborns (1:9908 live births). Nine out of the 67 BWS patients were conceived through ART (13.4%), and 8 were molecularly tested, with 4 having an imprinting center 2 loss of methylation, 2 with 11p15.5 paternal uniparental disomy, and 2 negative results. CONCLUSIONS: ART entails a 10-fold increased risk of BWS and could be implicated in the pathogenesis of genomic events besides methylation anomalies. These data highlight the need for awareness of ART–associated health risk.

Objective To compare tumor risk in the 4 Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS) molecular subgroups: Imprinting Control Region 1 Gain of Methylation (ICR1-GoM), Imprinting Control Region 2 Loss of Methylation (ICR2-LoM), Chromosome 11p15 Paternal Uniparental Disomy (UPD), and Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor 1C gene ( CDKN1C ) mutation. Study design Studies on BWS and tumor development published between 2000 and 2015 providing (epi)genotype-cancer correlations with histotype data were reviewed and meta-analysed with cancer histotypes as measured outcome and (epi)genotype as exposure. Results A total of 1370 patients with BWS were included: 102 developed neoplasms (7.4%). Tumor prevalence was 2.5% in ICR2-LoM, 13.8% in UPD, 22.8% in ICR1-GoM, and 8.6% in patients with CDKN1C mutations. Cancer ORs were 12.8 in ICR1-GoM, 6.5 in UPD, and 2.9 in patients with CDKN1C mutations compared with patients with ICR2-LoM. Wilms tumor was associated with ICR1-GoM (OR 68.3) and UPD (OR 13.2). UPD also was associated with hepatoblastoma (OR 5.2) and adrenal carcinoma (OR 7.0), and CDKN1C mutations with neuroblastic tumors (OR 7.2). Conclusion Cancer screening in BWS could be differentiated on the basis of (epi)genotype and target specific histotypes. Patients with ICR1-GoM and UPD should undergo renal ultrasonography scanning, given their risk of Wilms tumor. Alpha feto protein monitoring for heptaoblastoma is suggested in patients with UPD. Adrenal carcinoma may deserve screening in patients with UPD. Patients with CDKN1C mutations may deserve neuroblastoma screening based on urinary markers and ultrasonography scanning. Finally, screening appears questionable in cases of ICR2-LoM, given low tumor risk.