POT1 tumour predisposition: a broader spectrum of associated malignancies and proposal for additional screening program.

Protection of Telomeres Protein 1 (POT1) protein is an essential subunit of the shelterin telomere binding complex, regulating telomere length. Some POT1 gene pathogenic variants (PV) lead to telomere elongation, genomic instability and higher risk of cancer. POT1 tumour predisposition syndrome (POT1-TPD) has autosomal dominant inheritance and unknown penetrance. It is associated with increased risk of cutaneous melanoma, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, angiosarcoma and gliomas. In this work, we aim to describe a broader cancer phenotype related to POT1-TPD, in three families (two with a four generation pedigree, one with a five generation pedigree). The three index cases were referred to our oncogenetic centre for genetic counselling due to their personal history of cancer. Two underwent clinical exome sequencing of 4,867 genes associated with Mendelian genetic diseases, and another underwent gene panel sequencing including POT1, which identified three different POT1 PV: NC_000007.14(NM_015450.2):c.349C>T; NC_000007.14(NM_015450.2):c.233T>C and NC_000007.14(NM_015450.2):c.818G>A; already described in the literature. Referenced relatives, did a target genetic test (according to the POT1 PV identified in the family). In total, 37 individuals were tested (51.4% females), median age of 46 (22-81) years, with POT1 PV detected in 22. POT1-TPD was observed, but also a higher incidence of other cancers (other sarcomas, papillary thyroid cancer, early onset prostate cancer and leukaemia). These findings contribute to an increase in our knowledge about POT1 PV, and it can play a role in the definition of future POT1 PV screening criteria, POT1 carrier surveillance protocols (possibly considering screening for all types of sarcomas) and in genetic counselling.

Early-Onset Autosomal Dominant Myopathy with Vacuolated Fibers and Tubular Aggregates but No Periodic Paralysis, in a Patient with the c.1583G>A (p.R528H) mutation in the CACNA1S Gene.

Dominant mutations in CACNA1S gene mainly causes hypokalemic periodic paralysis (PP)(hypoPP). A 68-year-old male proband developed a progressive proximal weakness from the age of 35. Muscle biopsy showed atrophic fibers with vacuoles containing tubular aggregates. Exome sequencing revealed a heterozygous p.R528H (c.1583G>A) mutation in the CACNA1S gene. CACNA1S-related HypoPP evolving to persistent myopathy in late adulthood is a well-known clinical condition. However, isolated progressive myopathy (without PP) was only exceptionally reported and never with an early onset. Reporting a case of early onset CACNA1S-related myopathy in a patient with no HypoPP we intend to alert clinicians to consider it in the differential diagnosis of younger adult-onset myopathies especially when featuring vacuolar changes.

Prevalence and clinical impact of tumor BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in patients presenting with localized or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate management of localized or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC) patients harboring tumor BRCA mutations (tBRCAm) is not well-characterized. We sought to evaluate the prevalence and clinical outcomes of patients with tBRCAm and localized or de novo metastatic HSPC. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, international, retrospective cohort study of localized (cohort 1) and de novo metastatic (cohort 2) HSPC patients who underwent tumor BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequencing from 2013 to 2019. Primary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS) and metastases-free survival (MFS) for cohort 1, and time to castration-resistant prostate cancer (TTCRPC) and overall survival (OS) for cohort 2. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression models estimated the association of endpoints with tBRCA status. RESULTS: Of 399 identified patients with localized and de novo metastatic HSPC who underwent tumor BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequencing, 3.1% (8/258) patients of cohort 1 and 10.6% (15/141) patients of cohort 2 harbored tBRCAm. The median follow-up was 33 and 36 months, respectively. In cohort 1, median EFS was 18.1 vs. 57 months (p = 0.28) and MFS was 37 vs. 153.4 months (p = 0.08) for patients with tBRCAm compared to patients with no tBRCAm. In cohort 2, the TTCRPC was 24 vs. 19 months (p = 0.65) and OS was 64 vs. 60 months (p = 0.95) in patients with and without tBRCAm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: While tBRCAm seems to be associated with greater relapse risk in localized disease, tBRCAm did not influence the clinical outcomes of patients presenting with de novo metastatic HSPC treated with conventional therapies. tBRCAm may exert different prognostic effects across the clinical spectrum of prostate cancer.