Search

Around 50% of the familial breast cancer (BC) cases are estimated to be caused by germline variants in known low-, moderate-, and high-risk susceptibility genes, while the other half is of unknown genetic origin. In the present study, we wanted to evaluate the role of the RECQ helicases, some of which have been studied in the past as candidates, with unclear results about their role in the disease. Using next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology, we analyzed the whole coding sequence of BLM, RECQL1, RECQL4, RECQL5, and WRN in almost 2000 index cases from BC Spanish families that had previously tested negative for the known BC susceptibility genes (BRCAX) and compared the results with the controls extracted from gnomAD. Our results suggest that BLM, RECQL1, RECQL4, and WRN do not play a major role in BC susceptibility. However, in the combined analysis, joining the present results with those previously reported in a series of 1334 BC Spanish patients and controls, we found a statistically significant association between Loss of Function (LoF) variants in RECQL5 and BC risk, with an OR of 2.56 (p = 0.009; 95% CI, 1.18–4.98). Our findings support our previous work and places the RECQL5 gene as a new moderate-risk BC gene., A.O. is partially funded by FIS PI19/00640 supported by FEDER funds and the Spanish Network on Rare Diseases (CIBERER). M.d.l.H. is partially funded by FIS PI20/00110 supported by FEDER funds.

Objective To assess the accuracy of FDG-PET/contrast enhanced CT (FDG-PET/ceCT) in the detection of unsuspected recurrence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with high risk of relapse. Methods Thirty-three patients (14 females and 19 males, mean age: 62, range: 41–78), with CRC in complete remission, were prospectively included. All patients underwent FDG-PET/ceCT (58 studies). FDG-PET/ceCT was requested in the surveillance setting, and performed following a standardized protocol. A portal venous phase CT scan was performed after the injection of iodinated contrast agent. An individual and combined assessment of both techniques (PET and ceCT) was performed. Concordant and discordant findings of PET, ceCT and FDG-PET/ceCT were compared in a patient-based and a lesion-based analysis. The final diagnosis, recurrence or disease free status (DFS), were established by histopathology or clinical/radiological follow-up of at least 6 months. Results Seven out of 33 patients had a confirmed recurrence and the rest of patients had a DFS. In a patient-based analysis the sensitivity and specificity of PET, ceCT and PET/ceCT was of 86% and 88%, 86% and 92%, 86% and 85%, respectively. Attending to the lesion-based analysis, the sensitivity for PET, ceCT and PET/ceCT was of 56%, 71% and 97%, respectively. Both techniques showed a good concordance in the establishment of the final patient status. However, on a lesion-based analysis, no concordance was observed between them. Conclusion PET and ceCT seem to have similar value in the detection of unsuspected recurrence of CRC in a patient-based analysis. However, the combined assessment of PET/ceCT improves the accuracy in the lesion-based analysis.

To assess the accuracy of FDG-PET/contrast enhanced CT (FDG-PET/ceCT) in the detection of unsuspected recurrence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with high risk of relapse.Thirty-three patients (14 females and 19 males, mean age: 62, range: 41-78), with CRC in complete remission, were prospectively included. All patients underwent FDG-PET/ceCT (58 studies). FDG-PET/ceCT was requested in the surveillance setting, and performed following a standardized protocol. A portal venous phase CT scan was performed after the injection of iodinated contrast agent. An individual and combined assessment of both techniques (PET and ceCT) was performed. Concordant and discordant findings of PET, ceCT and FDG-PET/ceCT were compared in a patient-based and a lesion-based analysis. The final diagnosis, recurrence or disease free status (DFS), were established by histopathology or clinical/radiological follow-up of at least 6 months.Seven out of 33 patients had a confirmed recurrence and the rest of patients had a DFS. In a patient-based analysis the sensitivity and specificity of PET, ceCT and PET/ceCT was of 86% and 88%, 86% and 92%, 86% and 85%, respectively. Attending to the lesion-based analysis, the sensitivity for PET, ceCT and PET/ceCT was of 56%, 71% and 97%, respectively. Both techniques showed a good concordance in the establishment of the final patient status. However, on a lesion-based analysis, no concordance was observed between them.PET and ceCT seem to have similar value in the detection of unsuspected recurrence of CRC in a patient-based analysis. However, the combined assessment of PET/ceCT improves the accuracy in the lesion-based analysis.