Cited by 62Congenital Heart Disease StudiesGenomics and Rare DiseasesCongenital heart defects research

Association of Damaging Variants in Genes With Increased Cancer Risk Among Patients With Congenital Heart Disease

Open access
Morton, Sarah U., Shimamura, Akiko, Newburger, Peter E., Opotowsky, Alexander R., Quiat, Daniel, Pereira, Alexandre C., Jin, Sheng Chih, Gurvitz, Michelle +15 more·2021·JAMA Cardiology

Abstract

Importance: Patients with congenital heart disease (CHD), the most common birth defect, have increased risks for cancer. Identification of the variables that contribute to cancer risk is essential for recognizing patients with CHD who warrant longitudinal surveillance and early interventions. Objective: To compare the frequency of damaging variants in cancer risk genes among patients with CHD and control participants and identify associated clinical variables in patients with CHD who have cancer risk variants. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter case-control study included participants with CHD who had previously been recruited to the Pediatric Cardiac Genomics Consortium based on presence of structural cardiac anomaly without genetic diagnosis at the time of enrollment. Permission to use published sequencing data from unaffected adult participants was obtained from 2 parent studies. Data were collected for this study from December 2010 to April 2019. Exposures: Presence of rare (allele frequency, <1 × 10-5) loss-of-function (LoF) variants in cancer risk genes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Frequency of LoF variants in cancer risk genes (defined in the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer-Cancer Gene Consensus database), were statistically assessed by binomial tests in patients with CHD and control participants. Results: A total of 4443 individuals with CHD (mean [range] age, 13.0 [0-84] years; 2225 of 3771 with reported sex [59.0%] male) and 9808 control participants (mean [range] age, 52.1 [1-92] years; 4967 of 9808 [50.6%] male) were included. The frequency of LoF variants in regulatory cancer risk genes was significantly higher in patients with CHD than control participants (143 of 4443 [3.2%] vs 166 of 9808 [1.7%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.93 [95% CI, 1.54-2.42]; P = 1.38 × 10-12), and among CHD genes previously associated with cancer risk (58 of 4443 [1.3%] vs 18 of 9808 [0.18%]; OR, 7.2 [95% CI, 4.2-12.2]; P < 2.2 × 10-16). The LoF variants were also nominally increased in 14 constrained cancer risk genes with high expression in the developing heart. Seven of these genes (ARHGEF12, CTNNB1, LPP, MLLT4, PTEN, TCF12, and TFRC) harbored LoF variants in multiple patients with unexplained CHD. The highest rates for LoF variants in cancer risk genes occurred in patients with CHD and extracardiac anomalies (248 of 1482 individuals [16.7%]; control: 1099 of 9808 individuals [11.2%]; OR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.37-1.85]; P = 1.3 × 10-10) and/or neurodevelopmental delay (209 of 1393 individuals [15.0%]; control: 1099 of 9808 individuals [11.2%]; OR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.19-1.64]; P = 9.6 × 10-6). Conclusions and Relevance: Genotypes of CHD may account for increased cancer risks. In this cohort, damaging variants were prominent in the 216 genes that predominantly encode regulatory proteins. Consistent with their fundamental developmental functions, patients with CHD and damaging variants in these genes often had extracardiac manifestations. These data may also implicate cancer risk genes that are repeatedly varied in patients with unexplained CHD as CHD genes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.4947

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A nonsense variant c.367C > T (p.Arg213Ter) in ABI1 was identified in a patient with cardiovascular dysfunction and neurodevelopmental disorder.

    “A nonsense variant, c.367C > T, p.Arg213Ter, in ABI1 was identified in a patient with cardiovascular dysfunction and NDD135–137 (Table 2v).”

    From The WAVE complex in developmental and adulthood brain disorders (2025) · cites this paper as [137]

    The Results sections on candidate congenital-heart-disease genes and comorbid neurodevelopmental defects discuss loss-of-function variants in other genes, but do not identify an ABI1 variant or the patient described. Searches of our copy for “ABI1,” “c.367C > T,” and “Arg213Ter” found no matching passage. The cited paper therefore does not verify this specific case in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. [1]Gilboa SM, Devine OJ, Kucik JE,. Congenital heart defects in the United States: estimating the magnitude of the affected population in 2010. Circulation. 2016; 134(2): 101- 109. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.019307 27382105 PMC4942347 · DOI
  2. [2]Lee YS, Chen YT, Jeng MJ,. The risk of cancer in patients with congenital heart disease: a nationwide population-based cohort study in Taiwan. PLoS One. 2015; 10(2): e0116844. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116844 25706872 PMC4338195 · DOI
  3. [3]Gurvitz M, Ionescu-Ittu R, Guo L,. Prevalence of cancer in adults with congenital heart disease compared with the general population. Am J Cardiol. 2016; 118(11): 1742- 1750. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2016.08.057 27702435 · DOI
  4. [4]Mandalenakis Z, Karazisi C, Skoglund K,. Risk of cancer among children and young adults with congenital heart disease compared with healthy controls. JAMA Netw Open. 2019; 2(7): e196762. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.6762 31276179 PMC12578487 · DOI
  5. [5]Beauséjour Ladouceur V, Lawler PR, Gurvitz M,. Exposure to low-dose ionizing radiation from cardiac procedures in patients with congenital heart disease: 15-year data from a population-based longitudinal cohort. Circulation. 2016; 133(1): 12- 20. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.019137 26538581 · DOI
  6. [6]Sifrim A, Hitz MP, Wilsdon A,; INTERVAL Study; UK10K Consortium; Deciphering Developmental Disorders Study. Distinct genetic architectures for syndromic and nonsyndromic congenital heart defects identified by exome sequencing. Nat Genet. 2016; 48(9): 1060- 1065. doi: 10.1038/ng.3627 27479907 PMC5988037 · DOI
  7. [7]Jin SC, Homsy J, Zaidi S,. Contribution of rare inherited and de novo variants in 2,871 congenital heart disease probands. Nat Genet. 2017; 49(11): 1593- 1601. doi: 10.1038/ng.3970 28991257 PMC5675000 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [9]Qi H, Dong C, Chung WK, Wang K, Shen Y. Deep genetic connection between cancer and developmental disorders. Hum Mutat. 2016; 37(10): 1042- 1050. doi: 10.1002/humu.23040 27363847 PMC5021574 · DOI
  9. [10]Genovese G, Fromer M, Stahl EA,. Increased burden of ultra-rare protein-altering variants among 4,877 individuals with schizophrenia. Nat Neurosci. 2016; 19(11): 1433- 1441. doi: 10.1038/nn.4402 27694994 PMC5104192 · DOI · Paper page
  10. [11]Homsy J, Zaidi S, Shen Y,. De novo mutations in congenital heart disease with neurodevelopmental and other congenital anomalies. Science. 2015; 350(6265): 1262- 1266. doi: 10.1126/science.aac9396 26785492 PMC4890146 · DOI
  11. [12]Pierpont ME, Brueckner M, Chung WK,; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine. Genetic basis for congenital heart disease: revisited: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2018; 138(21): e653- e711. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000606 30571578 PMC6555769 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [13]Gröbner SN, Worst BC, Weischenfeldt J,; ICGC PedBrain-Seq Project; ICGC MMML-Seq Project. The landscape of genomic alterations across childhood cancers. Nature. 2018; 555(7696): 321- 327. doi: 10.1038/nature25480 29489754 · DOI · Paper page
  13. [14]Huang KL, Mashl RJ, Wu Y,; Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Pathogenic germline variants in 10,389 adult cancers. Cell. 2018; 173(2): 355- 370.e14. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.039 29625052 PMC5949147 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morton, S. U., Shimamura, A., Newburger, P. E., Opotowsky, A. R., Quiat, D., Pereira, A. C., Jin, S. C., Gurvitz, M., Brueckner, M., Chung, W. K., Shen, Y., Bernstein, D., Gelb, B. D., Giardini, A., Goldmuntz, E., Kim, R. W., Lifton, R. P., Porter, G. A., Srivastava, D., Tristani-Firouzi, M., Newburger, J. W., Seidman, J. G., & Seidman, C. E.
Affiliations
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • Cardiorespiratory Unit, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK
  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
  • Children's Hospital Los Angeles (US)
  • Rockefeller University (US)
  • Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester Medical Center, The School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York
  • Gladstone Institutes (US)
  • Division of Pediatric Cardiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Seidman, Christine E.
Venue
JAMA Cardiology
Published
2021-04-01
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
457
ISSN
2380-6583 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3094166859
Cited by
62
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
5.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Cardiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network (American Medical Association) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000003, UL1TR001863)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U01HL098153, U01HL098123, U01HL098162, R00HL143036, U01HL153009, UM1HL128761, U01HL098188, U01HL131003, U01HL098147, R01HL057181, T32HL007572, UM1HL172717)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM120609)
  • National Center for Research Resources
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Congenital Heart Disease Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Congenital heart defects research
Keywords
congenital heart disease, cancer risk genes, loss-of-function mutations, rare variants, cancer susceptibility, cancer surveillance, germline mutations, regulatory genes
MeSH terms
Loss of Function Mutation, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Gene Expression Regulation, Gene Frequency, Heart Defects, Congenital, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Genetic Variation, Case-Control Studies, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Genes, Neoplasm, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review