Skip to main content
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2021 Apr 1;60(8):559–564. doi: 10.1002/gcc.22947

Germline sequence analysis of RABL3 in a large series of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients reveals no evidence of deleterious variants

Nicholas J Roberts 1,2,3, Robert C Grant 4,5, Steven Gallinger 5,, Alison P Klein 1,2,3,6,; the Familial Pancreatic Cancer Genome Sequencing Project
PMCID: PMC8251898  PMID: 33724601

Abstract

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a lethal disease with a 5‐year survival rate of less than 10%. Individuals with a pathogenic germline variant in a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene are at an increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Understanding the inherited genetic basis of pancreatic tumor development provides a unique opportunity to improve patient care and outcomes. For example, relatives of a patients with PDAC who have a pathogenic germline variant in a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene are eligible for disease surveillance where cancers may be detected early, and 5‐year survival greatly improved. Furthermore, for some patients with PDAC and a pathogenic germline variant in a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene, their tumors may be susceptible to specific anti‐cancer therapies. Recently, RABL3 was identified as a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene. To validate these findings and inform clinical translation, we determined the prevalence of deleterious RABL3 variants in a large cohort of 1037 patients with PDAC that had undergone either whole genome or whole exome germline sequencing. We identified two synonymous variants and four missense variants classified as variants of unknown significance. We found no pathogenic RABL3 variants, indicating that the maximum prevalence of such variants in patients with PDAC is less than 0.36% (minor allele frequency 0, 97.5% one‐sided confidence interval: 0‐0.0036). This finding has important implications for germline genetic testing of patients with PDAC.

Keywords: Cancer, Inherited, Pancreas, RABL3, Variants

1. INTRODUCTION

Up to 10% of newly diagnosed patients with PDAC have a family history of pancreatic cancer. 1 These aggregation of PDAC in these families can be due to inherited genetic variants, environmental factors, or stochastic effects. Inherited causes; however, are an important cause of this familial aggregation, with up to 20% of newly diagnosed patients with familial pancreatic cancer having an identifiable pathogenic germline variant in a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene, most frequently in ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDKN2A, and PALB2. 2 However, it is clear that many inherited cases of pancreatic cancer remain unexplained by our current knowledge.

In addition to patients with a family history, pathogenic germline variants in pancreatic cancer susceptibility genes have also been found in 5%‐10% of patients with PDAC without a family history and 2.9% of patients with surgically resected intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, a pancreatic cancer precursor lesion, unselected for a family history of pancreatic cancer. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 These studies indicate an inherited disease etiology for a larger number of patents than was previously appreciated.

Knowing whether a patient with PDAC carriers a pathogenic germline variant in a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene has important implications for the clinical management of the patient and their biological relatives. Specifically, patients with PDAC and a pathogenic germline variant in BRCA1, BRCA2, or PALB2, may have better outcomes when treated with poly(ADP ribose) polymerase inhibitors or platinum containing chemotherapeutic agents due to somatic loss of homology directed DNA repair. 7 , 8 Similarly, patients with PDAC and a pathogenic germline mutation in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2, have tumors that are deficient in DNA mismatch repair and are exquisitely sensitive to PD‐1 blockade. 9 Furthermore, family members with pathogenic germline variants in a pancreatic cancer susceptibility genes are eligible for clinical surveillance to detect pancreatic and other cancers early when surgical intervention may be curative. 10 These advances in our understanding of the role of inherited factors in pancreatic cancer risk, as well as the treatment implications of such findings, were the driving forces behind updated National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines to consider germline genetic testing in all patients with PDAC. 11 Because of the significance of carrying a pathogenic variant in a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene, several studies have used next generation sequencing approaches to identify novel susceptibility genes with some success, including ATM, CPA1, and CPB1. 12 , 13 , 14 Recently, RABL3 was identified as a potential pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene after a functionally deleterious RABL3 germline variant was identified in a single family with multiple affected members and found to segregate with disease. 15 However, additional pancreatic cancer patients with pathogenic germline RABL3 variants have not yet been reported. Thus, the utility of including RABL3 as part of multi‐gene panel testing for pancreatic cancer patients and their relatives remains unclear. Therefore, to replicate the initial finding and better understand the contribution of RABL3 variants to pancreatic cancer risk, we examined the coding region of the RABL3 gene in the germline of 1037 patients with PDAC, over 600 of which had familial pancreatic cancer, and determined the prevalence of pathogenic RABL3 variants. 13 , 16 , 17

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. ETHICS STATEMENT

This analysis was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Johns Hopkins University and the Research Ethics Board at the University of Toronto.

2.2. Patients with PDAC

One thousand and thirty‐seven patients with pathologically confirmed PDAC and either germline whole genome or whole exome germline sequence data were included in this study and were previously described. 13 , 16 , 17 The first cohort included patients with familial pancreatic cancer, that is the patient was in a kindred in which there were at least two first‐degree relatives with pancreatic cancer, and germline whole genome sequence data. Patients with familial pancreatic cancer were enrolled in the National Familial Pancreas Tumor Registry (NFPTR) at Johns Hopkins and familial pancreatic cancer registries at Mount Sinai Hospital, as well as other sites. 13 The second cohort included patients with either familial pancreatic cancer or sporadic PDAC and either germline whole exome or whole genome sequence data, analyzed as part of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research PanCuRx Translational Research Initiative. 16 , 17 We excluded the following patient samples from our analysis: (a) duplicate patient samples in the combined cohort such that patients were included only once for analysis, (b) patients of non‐European Ancestry, and (c) patient samples from Dana‐Farber Cancer Institute to avoid inclusion of patients already reported by Nissim et al. 15

2.3. Sequencing and bioinformatic analysis

We re‐analyzed all exome and genome sequencing data through a harmonized bioinformatic pipeline. Sequencing reads were aligned to the human reference (hg19) genome using Burrows‐Wheeler Aligner version 0.7.12. 18 Variants were called using the HaplotypeCaller, CombineGVCFs, and GenotypeGVCF functionalities of the Genome Analysis Tool Kit version 3.5.0. 19

2.4. Variant annotation and classification

Germline variants, including single base substitutions and small insertions and deletions (INDELs), in the RABL3 coding region were extracted and annotated with transcript information and protein functional consequence using the Reference Sequence Database (RefSeq), minor allele frequency (MAF) form the population‐based variation database gnomAD ((v.2.1.1.1 [non‐cancer]), and clinical significance in ClinVar using ANNOVAR. 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 We classified RABL3 variants as either benign, variant of unknown significance (VUS), or pathogenic using our previous published criteria based on the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) variant classification guidelines. 6 , 24 Briefly, variants with MAF>0.005 were classified as benign. Nonsynonymous variants or in‐frame insertions or deletions (INDELs), with a MAF ≤0.005 and not reported as pathogenic in ClinVar, were classified as VUS. Nonsense variants, frameshift INDELs, or splicing variants (±1 or ± 2 position of adjacent intronic sequence) with a MAF ≤0.005, as well as nonsynonymous variants or in‐frame indels with a MAF ≤0.005 reported to be pathogenic in ClinVar, were classified as deleterious.

2.5. Statistical analysis

STATA v.13 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX) was used for all statistical analyses. The confidence interval for deleterious RABL3 variants in patients was calculated using a binomial distribution. Variant association analysis used the European (non‐Finnish) population in the gnomAD database (v.2.1.1.1 [non‐cancer]) as a control group and was conducted using a Fisher's exact test. P < .05 was considered significant. 19

3. RESULTS

We included 1037 patients with PDAC in this study. The demographics of the patients are presented in Table 1. Germline whole genome sequence data was available for 532 (51.3%) patients and whole exome sequence data available for 505 (48.7%) patients. 13 , 16 , 17 Overall, 601 (58.0%) patients had a family history consistent with familial pancreatic cancer. 499 (48.1%) patients were male, 442 (42.6%) patients were female, and for 96 (9.3%) patients, sex was not reported. The median age group of patients at diagnosis was 60‐69 years.

TABLE 1.

Demographics of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma included in study

Characteristic a Number Percent (%)
Type of sequencing
Whole genome 532 51.3
Whole exome 505 48.7
Family history
FPC 601 58.0
non‐FPC 307 29.6
Not reported 129 12.4
Age (years)
<40 8 0.8
40‐49 57 5.5
50‐59 196 18.9
60–69 310 29.9
70‐79 280 27.0
80+ 84 8.1
Not reported 102 9.8
Sex
Male 499 48.1
Female 442 42.6
Not reported 96 9.3
a

FPC, familial pancreatic cancer.

We identified six unique coding variants in RABL3 in this cohort of 1037 patients (Table 2). These included 2 benign synonymous variants and 4 missense VUS classified using ACMG variant classification guidelines. 24 We did not identify any deleterious RABL3 variants. Comparison to the European (non‐Finnish) population in the gnomAD database showed that all RABL3 variants identified in our patient cohort were rare in the general population (MAF ≤0.00808). Thus, in our series of over 1000 patients with PDAC, the prevalence of deleterious RABL3 variants was 0 (97.5% one‐sided confidence interval: 0‐0.0036).

TABLE 2.

RABL3 variants identified in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Variant Functional consequence Transcript Protein SNP identifier Classification MAF gnomAD Allele count gnomAD Allele number gnomAD Allele frequency patients with PDAC Allele count patients with PDAC Allele number patients with PDAC
g.chr3:120417330_A > G Synonymous c.T474C p.H158H rs61758778 Benign 0.00808 954 118 076 0.00386 8 2074
g.chr3:120428634_G > A Synonymous c.C261T p.S87S rs35389318 Benign 0.00682 796 116 760 0.00530 11 2074
g.chr3:120413055_C > T Nonsynonymous c.G551A p.R184Q rs61756477 VUS 0.00135 159 117 926 0.00193 4 2074
g.chr3:120424944_C > G Nonsynonymous cG286C p.D96H rs564912172 VUS 0.00001 1 102 678 0.00048 1 2074
g.chr3:120424950_C > T Nonsynonymous c.G280A p.V94I rs755345084 VUS 0.00002 2 118 012 0.00048 1 2074
g.chr3:120449569_T > C Nonsynonymous c.A112G p.T38A NA VUS 0.00000 0 102 686 0.00048 1 2074

Note: Genomic co‐ordinates use hg19 version of human genome. RABL3 transcript accession number: NM_173825; RABL3 protein accession number: NP_776186; gnomAD v.2.1.1 (non‐cancer) for the European (non‐Finnish) population.

Abbreviations: NA, not applicable; MAF, minor allele frequency; VUS, variant of unknown significance.

4. DISCUSSION

Understanding the genetic basis of susceptibility to PDAC has important consequences both for patients and their relatives. Germline genetic testing identifies patients with apparently pathogenic variants or VUS in genes associated with either high, moderate, or no increased risk of cancer. Such findings are the source of significant clinical uncertainty in the management of patients. 25 Therefore, validation of cancer‐associated variants and genes in independent patient cohorts is essential to determine the utility of germline testing.

The recent study by Nissim et al reported RABL3 as a putative pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene. 15 Specifically, a functionally defective nonsense variant (g.chr3:120449574_G > T; p.S36X) was found to segregate with two individuals with PDAC in a single family. By contrast, we did not identify any deleterious RABL3 variants in our large cohort of patients with PDAC. In addition to the p.S36X variant, Nissim et al also reported an excess of a rare RABL3 missense variant (g.chr3:120413055_C > T; p.R184Q) in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) exome sequenced samples compared to the non‐TCGA cohort in the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC) database. While this variant was observed at a frequency of 0.19% in our dataset, this was not statistically significantly higher than the frequency observed in non‐cancer cases in gnomAD (Table 2; 0.13%, P = .36). Our findings are in agreement with a recently published report that did not identify the p.S36X and p.R194Q variants in 66 patients with pancreatic cancer. 26

Our study has a few limitations. Firstly, as the true prevalence of RABL3 deleterious variants in patients with PDAC is likely to be <0.0036, studies incorporating additional cases are necessary to determine whether deleterious RABL3 variants are associated, but only rarely, with risk of PDAC. Secondly, we assessed only coding variants in RABL3 as their functional consequence could be interpreted. Non‐coding and structural variants in RABL3 could potentially play an as‐of‐yet unappreciated role in susceptibility to PDAC.

In conclusion, we found no deleterious RABL3 variants in our large series of patients with PDAC, over half of which were from kindreds with familial pancreatic cancer and therefore more likely to harbor high‐risk germline variants. Therefore, until further studies are conducted to better understand the role of RABL3 as a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene, including the validation of its association with pancreatic cancer risk, the inclusion of RABL3 in routine genetic testing for patients with PDAC is premature.

Familial Pancreatic Cancer Genome Sequencing Project (FPC‐GSP) Investigators

Randall Brand,1 Michele L. Cote,2 Mengmeng Du,3 James R. Eshleman,4 Steven Gallinger,5 Michael Goggins,4 Ralph H. Hruban,4 Alison P. Klein,6 Robert C. Kurtz,7 Gloria M. Petersen,8 Nicholas J. Roberts,4 Anil K. Rustgi,9 Ann G. Schwartz,2 Elena M. Stoffel,10 George Zogopoulos.11

1Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.2Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan.3Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.4Department of Pathology, Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland.5Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.6Department of Oncology, Pathology and Medicine, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.7Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.8Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.9Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.10Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.11The Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

Data used in this article were obtained from the FPC‐GSP (www.familialpancreaticcancer.org). Thereby, the FPC‐GSP investigators contributed to the design and implementation of FPC‐GSP and/or provided data. They did not participate in analysis or writing of this report. The FPC‐GSP project was generously supported by Dennis Troper and Susan Wojcicki, the Lustgarten Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research, the Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center, the Virginia and D.K. Ludwig Fund for Cancer Research, the Michael Rolfe Foundation, the Joseph C. Monastra Foundation, the Gerald O. Mann Charitable Foundation, the Ladies Auxiliary to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the friends and family of Roger L. Kerns Sr., the Weston Garfield Foundation, the NIH Specialized Programs of Research Excellence P30CA006973, P50CA62924 and P50CA102701, and NIH grants K99‐CA190889, R01‐CA57345, R01‐CA97075, R01‐CA154823, and R01‐DK060694.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Nicholas J. Roberts, Robert C. Grant, Steven Gallinger, Alison P. Klein planned and designed study. Nicholas J. Roberts, Robert C. Grant, Steven Gallinger, Alison P. Klein conducted experiments and generated sequence data. Nicholas J. Roberts, Robert C. Grant, Steven Gallinger, Alison P. Klein analyzed data. Nicholas J. Roberts, Robert C. Grant, Steven Gallinger, Alison P. Klein wrote the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center; Susan Wojcicki and Dennis Troper; the Lustgarten Foundation; the Rolfe Pancreatic Cancer Foundation; the Joseph C Monastra Foundation; the Gerald O Mann Charitable Foundation (Harriet and Allan Wulfstat, Trustees); NIH/NCI R00 CA190889 and NIH/NCI P50 CA62924; Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (PanCuRx Translational Research Initiative) through funding provided by the Government of Ontario (Ministry of Research and Innovation); a Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute grant (702316); the Wallace‐McCain Centre for Pancreatic Cancer at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre; the Weston Garfield Foundation.

Roberts NJ, Grant RC, Gallinger S, Klein AP, the Familial Pancreatic Cancer Genome Sequencing Project. Germline sequence analysis of RABL3 in a large series of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma patients reveals no evidence of deleterious variants. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2021;60:559–564. 10.1002/gcc.22947

Nicholas J. Roberts and Robert C. Grant contributed equally and share co‐first authorship.

Funding information Canadian Cancer Society, Grant/Award Number: 702316; Lustgarten Foundation; National Cancer Institute, Grant/Award Numbers: P50 CA62924, R00 CA190889; Ontario Institute for Cancer Research; Susan Wojcicki and Dennis Troper; The Gerald O Mann Charitable Foundation; The Joseph C Monastra Foundation; The Rolfe Pancreatic Cancer Foundation; The Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center; The Wallace‐McCain Centre for Pancreatic Cancer at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre; The Weston Garfield Foundation

Contributor Information

Steven Gallinger, Email: steven.gallinger@uhn.ca.

Alison P. Klein, Email: aklein1@jhmi.edu.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

This study used previously published germline whole genome and whole exome sequences from patients with PDAC ‐ see article text for details.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Hruban RH, Petersen GM, Ha PK, Kern SE. Genetics of pancreatic Cancer. From genes to families. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 1998;7(1):1‐23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Wood LD, Yurgelun MB, Goggins MG. Genetics of familial and sporadic pancreatic Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(7):2041‐2055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Holter S, Borgida A, Dodd A, et al. Germline BRCA mutations in a large clinic‐based cohort of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(28):3124‐3129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Hu C, Hart SN, Polley EC, et al. Association between inherited germline mutations in Cancer predisposition genes and risk of pancreatic Cancer. JAMA. 2018;319(23):2401‐2409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Shindo K, Yu J, Suenaga M, et al. Deleterious germline mutations in patients with apparently sporadic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(30):3382‐3390. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Skaro M, Nanda N, Gauthier C, et al. Prevalence of germline mutations associated with cancer risk in patients with Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(6):1905‐1913. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Golan T, Hammel P, Reni M, et al. Maintenance Olaparib for germline BRCA‐mutated metastatic pancreatic Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(4):317‐327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Villarroel MC, Rajeshkumar NV, Garrido‐Laguna I, et al. Personalizing cancer treatment in the age of global genomic analyses: PALB2 gene mutations and the response to DNA damaging agents in pancreatic Cancer. Mol Cancer Ther. 2011;10(1):3‐8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H, et al. PD‐1 blockade in tumors with mismatch‐repair deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(26):2509‐2520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Abe T, Blackford AL, Tamura K, et al. Deleterious germline mutations are a risk factor for neoplastic progression among high‐risk individuals undergoing pancreatic surveillance. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(13):1070‐1080. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Tempero MA. NCCN guidelines updates: pancreatic Cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(5.5):603‐605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Roberts NJ, Jiao Y, Yu J, et al. ATM mutations in patients with hereditary pancreatic Cancer. Cancer Discov. 2012;2(1):41‐46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Roberts NJ, Norris AL, Petersen GM, et al. Whole genome sequencing defines the genetic heterogeneity of familial pancreatic Cancer. Cancer Discov. 2016;6(2):166‐175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Tamura K, Yu J, Hata T, et al. Mutations in the pancreatic secretory enzymes CPA1 and CPB1 are associated with pancreatic cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(18):4767‐4772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Nissim S, Leshchiner I, Mancias JD, et al. Mutations in RABL3 alter KRAS prenylation and are associated with hereditary pancreatic cancer. Nat Genet. 2019;51(9):1308‐1314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Grant RC, Denroche RE, Borgida A, et al. Exome‐wide association study of pancreatic Cancer risk. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(3):719‐722.e713. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Chan‐Seng‐Yue M, Kim JC, Wilson GW, et al. Transcription phenotypes of pancreatic cancer are driven by genomic events during tumor evolution. Nat Genet. 2020;52(2):231‐240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with burrows‐wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(14):1754‐1760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Poplin R, Ruano‐Rubio V, DePristo MA, et al. Scaling accurate genetic variant discovery to tens of thousands of samples. bioRxiv. 2018;201178. 10.1101/201178. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Karczewski KJ, Francioli LC, Tiao G, et al. Variation across 141,456 human exomes and genomes reveals the spectrum of loss‐of‐function intolerance across human protein‐coding genes. Nature. 2020;581:434‐443. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Landrum MJ, Lee JM, Benson M, et al. ClinVar: improving access to variant interpretations and supporting evidence. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(D1):D1062‐D1067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. O'Leary NA, Wright MW, Brister JR, et al. Reference sequence (RefSeq) database at NCBI: current status, taxonomic expansion, and functional annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(D1):D733‐D745. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Wang K, Li M, Hakonarson H. ANNOVAR: functional annotation of genetic variants from high‐throughput sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38(16):e164. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015;17(5):405‐424. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Robson M, Domchek S. Broad application of multigene panel testing for breast Cancer susceptibility‐Pandora's box is opening wider. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:1687. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Puzzono M, Crippa S, Zuppardo RA, Zapparoli E, Falconi M, Cavestro GM. Low‐frequency of RABL3 pathogenetic variants in hereditary and familial pancreatic cancer. Dig Liver Dis. 2020;53:519‐521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

This study used previously published germline whole genome and whole exome sequences from patients with PDAC ‐ see article text for details.


Articles from Genes, Chromosomes & Cancer are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES