Deep intronic hotspot variant explaining rhabdoid tumor predisposition syndrome in two patients with atypical teratoid and rhabdoid tumor

• Published in: European journal of human genetics : EJHG 2017-10, Vol.25 (10), p.1170-1172
• Main Authors: Tauziède-Espariat, Arnault, Masliah-Planchon, Julien, Brugières, Laurence, Puget, Stéphanie, Dufour, Christelle, Schneider, Pascale, Laquerrière, Annie, Frebourg, Thierry, Bodet, Damien, Lechapt-Zalcman, Emmanuèle, Pierron, Gaëlle, Delattre, Olivier, Varlet, Pascale, Bourdeaut, Franck
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cells, Cultured; Deoxyribonucleic acid; DNA; Genetic counseling; Germ-Line Mutation; Humans; Immunohistochemistry; Immunology; Infant; Insertion; Introns; Life Sciences; Male; Nucleotide sequence; Rhabdoid Tumor - diagnosis; Rhabdoid Tumor - genetics; Ribonucleic acid; RNA; Short Report; SMARCB1 Protein - genetics; SMARCB1 Protein - metabolism; Teratoma - diagnosis; Teratoma - genetics; Tumor cells; Tumors
• ISSN: 1018-4813; 1476-5438
• DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2017.115

About one third of patients with rhabdoid tumors (RT) harbor a heterozygous germline variant in SMARCB1. Molecular diagnosis therefore keeps a crucial place in the diagnosis of RT, and genetic counseling should be systematically recommended. However, immunohistochemistry has progressively replaced molecular tools to assess the status of SMARCB1 in tumors; the necessity of analyzing SMARCB1 status in the tumor may thus be less considered by neuropathologists and pediatric neuro-oncologists. In the present manuscript as aforementioned, we report on two patients with bifocal RT in the first month of life and in whom no germline variant was initially found in the SMARCB1 coding sequence. Careful analysis of SMARCB1 status in the tumors revealed that only one of the two inactivating hits was found in the coding sequence. By sequencing the tumor cells RNA, we were able to detect an insertion with an abnormal sequence, due to the same intronic variant of SMARCB1, which led to the exonisation of the first intron. This cryptic variant was absent in the germline DNA of both patients. Of note, we previously reported one patient with the same deep intronic variant in the germline in a soft tissue RT. To our mind, this additional report on two patients clearly demonstrates that this intronic variant is a new hotspot that should now be systematically added to the germline screening of SMARCB1. We therefore recommend searching for and cautiously interpreting germline analysis if SMARCB1 has not been extensively studied in the tumor.