Familial testicular germ cell tumor: no associated syndromic pattern identified.

BACKGROUND: Testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT) is the most common malignancy in young men. Familial clustering, epidemiologic evidence of increased risk with family or personal history, and the association of TGCT with genitourinary (GU) tract anomalies have suggested an underlying genetic predisposition. Linkage data have not identified a rare, highly-penetrant, single gene in familial TGCT (FTGCT) cases. Based on its association with congenital GU tract anomalies and suggestions that there is an intrauterine origin to TGCT, we hypothesized the existence of unrecognized dysmorphic features in FTGCT. METHODS: We evaluated 38 FTGCT individuals and 41 first-degree relatives from 22 multiple-case families with detailed dysmorphology examinations, physician-based medical history and physical examination, laboratory testing, and genitourinary imaging studies. RESULTS: The prevalence of major abnormalities and minor variants did not significantly differ between either FTGCT individuals or their first-degree relatives when compared with normal population controls, except for tall stature, macrocephaly, flat midface, and retro-/micrognathia. However, these four traits were not manifest as a constellation of features in any one individual or family. We did detect an excess prevalence of the genitourinary anomalies cryptorchidism and congenital inguinal hernia in our population, as previously described in sporadic TGCT, but no congenital renal, retroperitoneal or mediastinal anomalies were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our study did not identify a constellation of dysmorphic features in FTGCT individuals, which is consistent with results of genetic studies suggesting that multiple low-penetrance genes are likely responsible for FTGCT susceptibility.

Familial testicular germ cell tumors in adults: 2010 summary of genetic risk factors and clinical phenotype.

Familial aggregations of testicular germ cell tumor (FTGCT) have been well described, suggesting the existence of a hereditary TGCT subset. Approximately 1.4% of newly diagnosed TGCT patients report a positive family history of TGCT. Sons and siblings of TGCT patients have four- to sixfold and eight- to tenfold increases in TGCT risk respectively. Segregation analyses suggest an autosomal recessive mode of inheritance. Linkage analyses have identified several genomic regions of modest interest, although no high-penetrance cancer susceptibility gene has been mapped yet. These data suggest that the combined effects of multiple common alleles, each conferring modest risk, might underlie familial testicular cancer. Families display a mild phenotype: the most common number of affected families is 2. Age at diagnosis is 2-3 years younger for familial versus sporadic cases. The ratio of familial seminoma to nonseminoma is 1.0. FTGCT is more likely to be bilateral than sporadic TGCT. This syndrome is cancer site specific. Testicular microlithiasis is a newly recognized FTGCT component. Candidate gene-association studies have implicated the Y chromosome gr/gr deletion and PDE11A gene mutations as genetic modifiers of FTGCT risk. Two genomewide association studies of predominantly sporadic but also familial cases of TGCT have implicated the KIT-ligand, SPRY4, and BAK1 genes as TGCT risk modifiers. All five loci are involved in normal testicular development and/or male infertility. These genetic data provide a novel insight into the genetic basis of FTGCT, and an invaluable guide to future TGCT research.

Corporate preparedness for pandemic influenza: a survey of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in Montgomery County, Maryland.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a survey of corporate preparedness for pandemic influenza among biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies in Montgomery County, Maryland, to determine the level of preparedness for this industry and geographic region. METHODS: The survey, based on the HHS Business Pandemic Influenza Planning Checklist, established whether a company had a preparedness plan specific to pandemic influenza, the contents of its plan, or its reasons for a lack of a plan. RESULTS: A total of 50 companies participated in the survey. Of these, 40 did not have any type of preparedness plan, 3 were drafting plans, 6 had general preparedness plans that could be applied to an influenza pandemic, and only 1 company had a preparedness plan specifically designed to address pandemic influenza. CONCLUSIONS: Biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies in this geographic region are currently not well prepared for pandemic influenza. Public health officials should offer more help, possibly in the form of a model small business preparedness plan, and collaboration between companies should be encouraged to foster sharing of preparedness plans.