BACKGROUND Hereditary pancreatic carcinoma shows extant phenotypic and genotypic heterogeneity as evidenced by its integral association with a variety of hereditary cancer syndromes inclusive of the familial atypical multiple mole melanoma (FAMMM) syndrome in concert with CDKN2A (p16) germline mutations. METHODS Creighton University's familial pancreatic carcinoma resource comprises 159 families of which 19 (12%) show the FAMMM cutaneous phenotypes. The authors describe eight families with the FAMMM–pancreatic carcinoma (FAMMM‐PC) association in concert with a CDKN2A germline mutation. Each family was thoroughly educated about all facets of the study, including the molecular genetics, reduced penetrance of CDKN2A mutations, and their variable expressivity. Genetic counseling was provided to each patient. RESULTS Diversity in cancer presentation within and among the families was noteworthy, wherein melanoma predominated in certain of the families whereas pancreatic carcinoma predominated in others. Early‐onset pancreatic carcinoma (at ages 35, 45, 46, and 49 years) appeared in some of the families whereas markedly later‐onset pancreatic carcinoma occurred in others. There were four incidences of melanoma and pancreatic carcinoma as double primaries in the same individuals. One patient with melanoma and pancreatic carcinoma had a third primary of breast carcinoma. Another patient had sarcoma, esophageal carcinoma, and two melanoma primaries, whereas his daughter had sarcoma and was a carrier of a CDKN2A mutation. CONCLUSIONS The authors suggest that these tumors may collectively, in concert with CDKN2A mutations, constitute a “new” putative hereditary carcinoma syndrome referred to as FAMMM‐PC. More clinical and molecular genetic research on additional families with pancreatic carcinoma in concert with the FAMMM will be required. Cancer 2002;94:84–96. © 2002 American Cancer Society.

Purpose: To identify germ line CDH1 mutations in hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) families and develop guidelines for management of at risk individuals. Experimental Design: We ascertained 31 HDGC previously unreported families, including 10 isolated early-onset diffuse gastric cancer (DGC) cases. Screening for CDH1 germ line mutations was done by denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography and automated DNA sequencing. Results: We identified eight inactivating and one missense CDH1 germ line mutation. The missense mutation conferred in vitro loss of protein function. Two families had the previously described 1003C>T nonsense mutation. Haplotype analysis revealed this to be a recurrent and not a founder mutation. Thirty-six percent (5 of 14) of the families with a documented DGC diagnosed before the age of 50 and other cases of gastric cancer carried CDH1 germ line mutations. Two of10 isolated cases of DGC in individuals ages <35 years harbored CDH1germ line mutations. One mutation positive family was ascertained through a family history of lobular breast cancer (LBC) and another through an individual with both DGC and LBC. Occult DGC was identified in five of six prophylactic gastrectomies done on asymptomatic, endoscopically negative 1003C>T mutation carriers. Conclusions: In addition to families with a strong history of early-onset DGC, CDH1 mutation screening should be offered to isolated cases of DGC in individuals ages <35 years and for families with multiple cases of LBC, with any history of DGC or unspecified GI malignancies. Prophylactic gastrectomy is potentially a lifesaving procedure and clinical breast screening is recommended for asymptomatic mutation carriers.Gastric cancer is one of the three leading causes of cancer death worldwide (1). Although the incidence of gastric cancer in older patients is decreasing, in younger patients as well as in cases with familial clustering it remains stable, suggesting that genetic predisposition is an increasingly important risk factor for gastric cancer (2). In this respect, as few as 1% to 3% of all

No abstract

No abstract

This article is based upon a literature overview of cancer in Jews. It involves a comparison of variation in incidence and prevalence rates between Jews and non-Jews. However, the reader must exercise a certain amount of skepticism when considering secular changes in cancer incidence and prevalence and the public health implications of such cancer variation. Ashkenazi Jews have a lifetime CRC risk of 9--15%. This elevated CRC risk is similar to that of individuals in the "familial risk'' category, and differs strikingly from the 5-6% CRC risk for non-Ashkenazi members of general Western populations. A MedLine search tested the hypothesis that site-specific and/or all-cancer incidence and mortality rates are either higher or lower than expected in Ashkenazi Jews worldwide, when compared with reference populations. Results showed that all cancer incidence and mortality is not higher in Ashkenazi Jews when compared to North American non-Hispanic whites. Indeed, rates for some cancers, such as carcinoma of the lung in Ashkenazi males, are low; this example is likely attributable in large part to decreased tobacco use. Carcinoma of the ovary, pancreas, stomach, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma have a higher incidence rate in Ashkenazi. Even though BRCA1 and BRCA2 founder mutations which predispose to carcinoma of the breast and ovary appear increased in Ashkenazi breast cancer affected women, there was no evidence supporting an elevated risk of breast cancer among Ashkenazi women. Our primary concern, however, is that Ashkenazi Jews may have one of the highest lifetime CRC risks of any ethnic group in the world, a risk that diverges significantly from that of the general population; therein, it logically calls for more intensive CRC screening guidelines. We have emphasized that the reader use caution in the interpretation of statistics which portray variation in incidence and prevalence figures for cancer in any racial, ethnic, or religious group, inclusive, of course, of Jews. Clearly, more research will be required in the interest of accuracy in the understanding of these cancer variations, since they portend the need for special cancer control strategies. A lesser degree of attention can then be given to carcinoma of the penis and uterine cervix, which occur very infrequently in Jews. We urge our colleagues to continue to probe further into these statistical differences in cancer's incidence and prevalence in order to garner a better understanding of cancer's etiology and pathogenesis.