Genetic Testing in Head and Neck Paraganglioma: Who, What, and Why?

Abstract

Background Genetic testing in head and neck paragangliomas (HNPG) can have profound implications in patient and family counseling.

Methods Retrospective review was performed of patients with HNPG at a cancer care center from 1970 to present. Patient demographics, disease patterns, outcomes, and genetic mutations were analyzed.

Results We identified 26 patients with available genetic testing results. Sixteen had mutations. Succinate dehydrogenase gene, sub unit D (SDHD) accounted for 75% of mutations, of which P81L accounted for 75%. The remainder had SDHB mutations. Patients with mutations were younger (average age 39.5 years versus 48.4 years), 63% (versus 40%) had multiple tumors, 94% (60%) had at least one carotid body tumor, and family history was positive in 38% (20%).

Conclusion Patients suspected of heritable HNPG should undergo testing first at the SDHD and SDHB loci, and those with younger age, multiple tumors, carotid body tumors, and positive family history are more likely to have mutations.

Keywords

paraganglioma - carotid body tumor - genetic testing - mutation - succinate dehydrogenase

• References

• 1 Gujrathi CS, Donald PJ. Current trends in the diagnosis and management of head and neck paragangliomas. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005; 13 (6) 339-342
• 2 Martin TP, Irving RM, Maher ER. The genetics of paragangliomas: a review. Clin Otolaryngol 2007; 32 (1) 7-11
• 3 Schiavi F, Boedeker CC, Bausch B , et al; European-American Paraganglioma Study Group. Predictors and prevalence of paraganglioma syndrome associated with mutations of the SDHC gene. JAMA 2005; 294 (16) 2057-2063
• 4 Netterville JL, Jackson CG, Miller FR, Wanamaker JR, Glasscock ME. Vagal paraganglioma: a review of 46 patients treated during a 20-year period. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998; 124 (10) 1133-1140
• 5 Burnichon N, Rohmer V, Amar L , et al; PGL.NET network. The succinate dehydrogenase genetic testing in a large prospective series of patients with paragangliomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2009; 94 (8) 2817-2827
• 6 Hermsen MA, Sevilla MA, Llorente JL , et al. Relevance of germline mutation screening in both familial and sporadic head and neck paraganglioma for early diagnosis and clinical management. Cell Oncol 2010; 32 (4) 275-283
• 7 Fakhry N, Niccoli-Sire P, Barlier-Seti A, Giorgi R, Giovanni A, Zanaret M. Cervical paragangliomas: is SDH genetic analysis systematically required?. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2008; 265 (5) 557-563
• 8 Neumann HP, Erlic Z, Boedeker CC , et al. Clinical predictors for germline mutations in head and neck paraganglioma patients: cost reduction strategy in genetic diagnostic process as fall-out. Cancer Res 2009; 69 (8) 3650-3656
• 9 Boedeker CC, Neumann HP, Maier W, Bausch B, Schipper J, Ridder GJ. Malignant head and neck paragangliomas in SDHB mutation carriers. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007; 137 (1) 126-129
• 10 Ricketts CJ, Forman JR, Rattenberry E , et al. Tumor risks and genotype-phenotype-proteotype analysis in 358 patients with germline mutations in SDHB and SDHD. Hum Mutat 2010; 31 (1) 41-51
• 11 Boedeker CC, Erlic Z, Richard S , et al. Head and neck paragangliomas in von Hippel-Lindau disease and multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2009; 94 (6) 1938-1944
• 12 Neumann HP, Pawlu C, Peczkowska M , et al; European-American Paraganglioma Study Group. Distinct clinical features of paraganglioma syndromes associated with SDHB and SDHD gene mutations. JAMA 2004; 292 (8) 943-951
• 13 Timmers HJ, Gimenez-Roqueplo AP, Mannelli M, Pacak K. Clinical aspects of SDHx-related pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma. Endocr Relat Cancer 2009; 16 (2) 391-400
• 14 Havekes B, van der Klaauw AA, Weiss MM , et al. Pheochromocytomas and extra-adrenal paragangliomas detected by screening in patients with SDHD-associated head-and-neck paragangliomas. Endocr Relat Cancer 2009; 16 (2) 527-536
• 15 Hensen EF, Bayley JP. Recent advances in the genetics of SDH-related paraganglioma and pheochromocytoma. Fam Cancer 2011; 10 (2) 355-363