Background and objectives The genetic cause of medullary cystic kidney disease type 1 was recently identified as a cytosine insertion in the variable number of tandem repeat region of MUC1 encoding mucoprotein-1 (MUC1), a protein that is present in skin, breast, and lung tissue, the gastrointestinal tract, and the distal tubules of the kidney. The purpose of this investigation was to analyze the clinical characteristics of families and individuals with this mutation.Design, setting, participants, & measurements Families with autosomal dominant interstitial kidney disease were referred for genetic analysis over a 14-year period. Families without UMOD or REN mutations prospectively underwent genotyping for the presence of the MUC1 mutation. Clinical characteristics were retrospectively evaluated in individuals with the MUC1 mutation and historically affected individuals (persons who were both related to genetically affected individuals in such a way that ensured that they could be genetically affected and had a history of CKD stage IV or kidney failure resulting in death, dialysis, or transplantation).Results Twenty-four families were identified with the MUC1 mutation. Of 186 family members undergoing MUC1 mutational analysis, the mutation was identified in 95 individuals, 91 individuals did not have the mutation, and111 individuals were identified as historically affected. Individuals with the MUC1 mutation suffered from chronic kidney failure with a widely variable age of onset of end stage kidney disease ranging from 16 to .80 years. Urinalyses revealed minimal protein and no blood. Ultrasounds of 35 individuals showed no medullary cysts. There were no clinical manifestations of the MUC1 mutation detected in the breasts, skin, respiratory system, or gastrointestinal tract.Conclusion MUC1 mutation results in progressive chronic kidney failure with a bland urinary sediment. The age of onset of end stage kidney disease is highly variable, suggesting that gene-gene or gene-environment interactions contribute to phenotypic variability.

Cancer genetics professionals face a new opportunity and challenge in adapting to the availability of cancer genetic testing panels, now available as a result of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technology. While cancer panels have been available for over a year, we believe that there is not yet enough data to create practice guidelines. Despite this, a year of experience allows us to provide our opinion on points to consider as cancer genetic counselors incorporate this testing technology into genetic counseling practice models. NGS technology offers the ability to potentially diagnose hereditary cancer syndromes more efficiently by testing many genes at once for a fraction of what it would cost to test each gene individually. However, there are limitations and additional risks to consider with these tests. Obtaining informed consent for concurrent testing of multiple genes requires that genetics professionals modify their discussions with patients regarding the potential cancer risks and the associated implications to medical management. We propose dividing the genes on each panel into categories that vary by degree of cancer risk (e.g. penetrance of the syndrome) and availability of management guidelines, with the aim to improve patient understanding of the range of information that can come from this testing. The increased risk for identifying variants of uncertain significance (VUS) when testing many genes at once must be discussed with patients. Pretest genetic counseling must also include the possibility to receive unexpected results as well as the potential to receive a result in the absence of related medical management guidelines. It is also important to consider whether a single gene test remains the best testing option for some patients. As panels expand, it is important that documentation reflects exactly which genes have been analyzed for each patient. While this technology holds the promise of more efficient diagnosis for many of our patients, it also comes with new challenges that we must recognize and address.

No abstract

OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to examine the association between tobacco and alcohol dose and type and the age of onset of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PancCa). METHODS Prospective data from the Pancreatic Cancer Collaborative Registry were used to examine the association between age of onset and variables of interest including: gender, race, birth country, educational status, family history of PancCa, diabetes status, and tobacco and alcohol use. Statistical analysis included logistic and linear regression, Cox proportional hazard regression, and time-to-event analysis. RESULTS The median age to diagnosis for PancCa was 66.3 years (95% confidence intervals (CIs), 64.5–68.0). Males were more likely than females to be smokers (77% vs. 69%, P = 0.0002) and heavy alcohol and beer consumers (19% vs. 6%, 34% vs. 19%, P < 0.0001). In univariate analysis for effects on PancCa presentation age, the following were significant: gender, alcohol and tobacco use (amount, status and type), family history of PancCa, and body mass index. Both alcohol and tobacco had dose-dependent effects. In multivariate analysis, alcohol status and dose were independently associated with increased risk for earlier PancCa onset with greatest risk occurring in heavy drinkers (HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.04–2.54). Smoking status had the highest risk for earlier onset pancreatic cancer with a HR of 2.69 (95% CI, 1.97–3.68) for active smokers and independent effects for dose (P = 0.019). The deleterious effects for alcohol and tobacco appear to resolve after 10 years of abstinence. CONCLUSIONS Alcohol and tobacco use are associated with a dose-related increased risk for earlier age of onset of PancCa. Although beer drinkers develop pancreatic cancer at an earlier age than nondrinkers, alcohol type did not have a significant effect after controlling for alcohol dose.

Deleterious BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations occur at considerable frequency within the Hispanic population, many of which have been identified previously in other ethnic populations. The BRCAPRO model appears to perform equally well in Hispanics as in whites.