Inherited conditions have implications not only for the individual affected but for the entire family. It is in this context that family communication of genetic risk information is important to understand. This paper aims to provide an overview of the construct of family communication of genetic risk and provide implications for healthcare providers. A search of relevant literature was done with electronic databases including PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The findings from the literature were organized based on the Family Communication of Genetic Risk (FCGR) conceptual framework which highlights the attributes of the family communication of genetic risk process including influential factors, communication strategy, communication occurrence, and outcomes of communication. Healthcare providers need to understand how individuals share genetic risk with their family members so that appropriate support and interventions can be provided to them. This is especially important across countries, including the Philippines, as genetic services and testing move beyond the traditional medical genetics clinic to other medical specialties, a development where we would expect an increase in individuals and family members undergoing genetic evaluation and testing.

Inherited conditions have implications not only for the individual affected but for the entire family. It is in this context that family communication of genetic risk information is important to understand. This paper aims to provide an overview of the construct of family communication of genetic risk and provide implications for healthcare providers. A search of relevant literature was done with electronic databases including PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. The findings from the literature were organized based on the Family Communication of Genetic Risk (FCGR) conceptual framework which highlights the attributes of the family communication of genetic risk process including influential factors, communication strategy, communication occurrence, and outcomes of communication. Healthcare providers need to understand how individuals share genetic risk with their family members so that appropriate support and interventions can be provided to them. This is especially important across countries, including the Philippines, as genetic services and testing move beyond the traditional medical genetics clinic to other medical specialties, a development where we would expect an increase in individuals and family members undergoing genetic evaluation and testing.
communication ; family ; genetic predisposition to disease ; genetic testing

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the gene therapy strategies for neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) and related research progress. METHODS: The recent literature on gene therapy for NF1 at home and abroad was reviewed. The structure and function of the NF1 gene and its mutations were analyzed, and the current status as well as future prospects of the transgenic therapy and gene editing strategies were summarized. RESULTS: NF1 is an autosomal dominantly inherited tumor predisposition syndrome caused by mutations in the NF1 tumor suppressor gene, which impair the function of the neurofibromin and lead to the disease. It has complex clinical manifestations and is not yet curable. Gene therapy strategies for NF1 are still in the research and development stage. Existing studies on the transgenic therapy for NF1 have mainly focused on the construction and expression of the GTPase-activating protein-related domain in cells that lack of functional neurofibromin, confirming the feasibility of the transgenic therapy for NF1. Future research may focus on split adeno-associated virus (AAV) gene delivery, oversized AAV gene delivery, and the development of new vectors for targeted delivery of full-length NF1 cDNA. In addition, the gene editing tools of the new generation have great potential to treat monogenic genetic diseases such as NF1, but need to be further validated in terms of efficiency and safety. CONCLUSION Gene therapy, including both the transgenic therapy and gene editing, is expected to become an important new therapeutic approach for NF1 patients.
Humans ; Neurofibromatosis 1/pathology* ; Neurofibromin 1/metabolism* ; GTPase-Activating Proteins ; Mutation ; Genetic Predisposition to Disease ; Genetic Therapy

Humans ; Genetic Predisposition to Disease ; Multifactorial Inheritance ; Genome-Wide Association Study ; Risk Factors

Humans ; Transcriptome/genetics* ; East Asian People ; Genetic Predisposition to Disease ; Genome-Wide Association Study ; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/genetics* ; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide/genetics*

Child ; Humans ; Case-Control Studies ; East Asian People ; Genetic Predisposition to Disease/genetics* ; Methyltransferases/genetics* ; Polymorphism, Genetic ; Wilms Tumor/pathology*

BACKGROUND: A polygenic risk score (PRS) derived from 112 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for gastric cancer has been reported in Chinese populations (PRS-112). However, its performance in other populations is unknown. A functional PRS (fPRS) using functional SNPs (fSNPs) may improve the generalizability of the PRS across populations with distinct ethnicities. METHODS: We performed functional annotations on SNPs in strong linkage disequilibrium (LD) with the 112 previously reported SNPs to identify fSNPs that affect protein-coding or transcriptional regulation. Subsequently, we constructed an fPRS based on the fSNPs by using the LDpred2-infinitesimal model and then analyzed the performance of the PRS-112 and fPRS in the risk prediction of gastric cancer in 457,521 European participants of the UK Biobank cohort. Finally, the performance of the fPRS in combination with lifestyle factors were evaluated in predicting the risk of gastric cancer. RESULTS: During 4,582,045 person-years of follow-up with a total of 623 incident gastric cancer cases, we found no significant association between the PRS-112 and gastric cancer risk in the European population (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93-1.09], P = 0.846). We identified 125 fSNPs, including seven deleterious protein-coding SNPs and 118 regulatory non-coding SNPs, and used them to construct the fPRS-125. Our result showed that the fPRS-125 was significantly associated with gastric cancer risk (HR = 1.11 [95% CI, 1.03-1.20], P = 0.009). Compared to participants with a low fPRS-125 (bottom quintile), those with a high fPRS-125 (top quintile) had a higher risk of incident gastric cancer (HR = 1.43 [95% CI, 1.12-1.84], P = 0.005). Moreover, we observed that participants with both an unfavorable lifestyle and a high genetic risk had the highest risk of incident gastric cancer (HR = 4.99 [95% CI, 1.55-16.10], P = 0.007) compared to those with both a favorable lifestyle and a low genetic risk. CONCLUSION These results indicate that the fPRS-125 derived from fSNPs may act as an indicator to measure the genetic risk of gastric cancer in the European population.
Humans ; Prospective Studies ; Stomach Neoplasms/genetics* ; Genetic Predisposition to Disease/genetics* ; Risk Factors ; Multifactorial Inheritance/genetics* ; Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide/genetics* ; Genome-Wide Association Study

Female ; Humans ; Male ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/genetics* ; Genetic Predisposition to Disease/genetics* ; Postmenopause ; Risk Factors ; Sex Hormone-Binding Globulin/genetics* ; Testosterone

Humans ; Arthritis, Juvenile/genetics* ; Intracellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins/genetics* ; Genetic Predisposition to Disease

Objective: To investigate the genetic, clinical and pathological characteristics of families with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOCS) and to explore the implementation of genetic counseling and preventive surgery. Methods: Four siblings with HBOCS in Cancer Hospital/Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences were selected as the study subjects. BRCA gene testing and genetic counseling were performed, family history was traced and family map was drawn. Results: There were 7 cancer patients (Ⅰ 2, Ⅱ 4, Ⅱ 8, Ⅲ 7, Ⅲ 10, Ⅲ 11, Ⅲ 12) in three generations in the family. One patient (Ⅲ 7) had breast cancer and ovarian cancer successively. The first generation (Ⅰ 2) developed cancer at age 60, the second generation (Ⅱ4 and Ⅱ8) developed cancer at 55. The third generation (Ⅲ 7, Ⅲ 10, Ⅲ 11, Ⅲ 12) developed cancer at the age of 42-50 years. Four HBOCS patients were treated in our hospital, and all of them were found to have deleterious BRCA1 mutation. Two had already developed ovarian cancer (Ⅲ 10, Ⅲ 12), while in one case (Ⅲ 11), tubal carcinoma was found during preventive total hysterectomy and pelvic lymph node metastasis was found after the supplementary staging surgery. The other patient without cancer underwent preventive bilateral salpingectomy(Ⅲ 15). Conclusion: The HBOCS family reported in this study is relatively rare, the onset time of tumor was younger generation by generation. It is very important to pay attention to the genetic counseling of ovarian cancer patients and to timely detect the HBOCS families for genetic testing and prophylactic surgery.
Humans ; Female ; Middle Aged ; Adult ; Genetic Counseling ; Genetic Predisposition to Disease ; Breast Neoplasms/surgery* ; Ovarian Neoplasms/surgery* ; Mutation