Journal Article
Clinical value of a screening tool for tumor predisposition syndromes in childhood cancer patients (TuPS): a prospective, observational, multi-center study
Floor A. M. Postema; Saskia M. J. Hopman; Corianne A. J. M. de Borgie; Cora M. Aalfs; Jakob K. Anninga; Lieke P. V. Berger; Fonnet E. Bleeker; Charlotte J. Dommering; Natasha K. A. van Eijkelenburg; Peter Hammond; Marry M. van den Heuvel-Eibrink; Janna A. Hol; Wijnanda A. Kors; Tom G. W. Letteboer; Jan L. C. M. Loeffen; Lisethe Meijer; Maran J. W. Olderode-Berends; Anja Wagner; Raoul C. Hennekam; Johannes H. M. Merks
Familial Cancer · Vol. 20, Issue 4 · pp. 263-271 · 2021
Abstract
Recognizing a tumor predisposition syndrome (TPS) in a child with cancer is of clinical relevance. Earlier we developed a screening tool to increase diagnostic accuracy and clinical efficiency of identifying TPSs in children with cancer. Here we report on the value of this tool in clinical practice. TuPS is a prospective, observational, multi-center study including children newly diagnosed with cancer from 2016 to 2019 in the Netherlands. Children in whom a TPS had been diagnosed before the cancer diagnosis were excluded. The screening tool consists of a checklist, 2D and 3D photographic series and digital assessment of these by a clinical geneticist. If a TPS was suspected, the patient was assessed positive and referred for routine genetic consultation. Primary aim was to assess the clinical value of this new screening tool. Of the 363 included patients, 57% (208/363) were assessed positive. In 15% of patients (32/208), the 2D photographic series with (n = 12) or without (n = 20) 3D photographs were decisive in the positive assessment. In 2% (4/208) of positive assessed patients, a TPS was diagnosed, and in an additional 2% (4/208) a germline variant of uncertain significance was found. Thirty-five negatively assessed patients were evaluated through routine genetic consultation as controls, in none a TPS was detected. Using the screening tool, 57% of the patients were assessed as suspected for having a TPS. No false negative results were identified in the negative control group in the clinical care setting. The observed prevalence of TPS was lower than expected, due to selection bias in the cohort.