Inherited Mutations in 16 Genes Increase Multiple-Cancer Risk: The Importance of Genetic Testing

In this article
⚠️ Why Does It Matter?
Advances in cancer treatment extend life, but raise a new question: What Is the Risk of a Second or Further Primary Cancer After Surviving the First? On August 28, 2025, JAMA Oncologypublished a large study showing that certain inherited gene variants increase this risk more than twofold . The findings reinforce the strategic role of genetic testing and personalized surveillance programs in oncology practice.
📊 Quick Summary (Key Numbers)
Population: From UK Biobank, 183,627 adults aged 40–69. All participants had whole-exome sequencing (WES) data.
| Indicators (Through March 2024) | Value |
|---|---|
| Total people diagnosed with cancer | 25,824 |
| Single primary cancer | 91.8% |
| Multiple primary cancers | 8.2% |
- Risk of any cancer: ~1.87–1.9-fold increase
- Multiple-primary cancer risk: ~2.56–2.6-fold increase
Pathogenic variant carriage: in single-cancer patients 6.28%, in multiple-primary patients 8.36%.
Clinical message: Patients with multiple primary cancers or a profile suggesting such risk should strongly be considered for broad gene-panel testing and risk-based screening .
🧪 Study Design and Scope
- Design: A large association study based on the population rather than families, providing a broader picture of real-world risk.
- Data source: UK Biobank; all participants had whole-exome sequencing data.
- Goal: For 11 common solid tumors, assess 96 cancer-predisposition genes .
- 16 Genes Associated With Increased Risk: ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRIP1, CDKN2A, CHEK2, HOXB13, MITF, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, NF1, PALB2, RAD51C, RAD51D.
🔍 Main Findings
| Measure | Result | Clinical Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Risk of developing at least one cancer | ~1.87–1.9× (in carriers of rare pathogenic variants in 16 genes) | Increased single-primary cancer risk; early, targeted screening becomes important |
| Multiple-primary cancer risk | ~2.56–2.6× | Significant increase in second/third primary cancer risk; close surveillance and broad-panel testing are reasonable |
| Carrier rate | 6.28% (single cancer) vs 8.36% (multiple primaries) | Greater pathogenic variant burden in the multiple-primary group |
| Example of a new association | BRCA2 ↔ bladder and lung cancer, strengthened by population data | A view of broader risk profiles beyond family studies; the threshold for clinical suspicion should be lower |
❓ Brief Frequently Asked Questions
- "Is BRCA2 Only Related to Breast and Ovarian Cancer?" No; this study strengthens the association with bladder and lung cancer.
- "When Should Multiple Primary Cancers Be Considered?" Early-onset cancer, a strong family history, or unusually rapid development of a second primary.
- "Single Gene or Broad Panel?" For multiple cancers or combined phenotypes, a broad panel may be more efficient.
🧭 Practical Implications and Clinical Use
- Lower the threshold for genetic assessment: In patients with multiple primary cancers or familial clustering, consider broad gene panels early.
- Risk-based screening: For pathogenic-variant carriers, increase screening frequency by organ and according to age/history .
- Multidisciplinary follow-up: Collaboration among medical oncology, genetic counseling, and, when needed, urology, pulmonology, and dermatology.
- Patient education: Second-cancer symptoms and lifestyle optimization: smoking cessation, weight management, physical activity.
- Family screening: When a pathogenic variant is identified, use cascade testing to assess first-degree relatives.
🗺️ A Brief Practical Pathway
- Phenotype & history assessment: Age, family history, tumor types (single/multiple primaries).
- Testing strategy: Single gene when suspicion is high ↔ broad panel for multiple primaries/heterogeneous phenotypes.
- Results management: For a positive variant, risk-based screening, prophylactic options, and family screening.
- Follow-up: Guideline-based intervals and interdisciplinary surveillance.
🚀 Looking Ahead
As population sequencing databases grow, genotype–phenotype matching will improve and uncertainty about rare variants' effects will narrow. In clinical practice, predictive risk scores and dynamic screening algorithms will provide more people with truly personalized follow-up.
Sources
Was this article helpful?
Your feedback helps us improve our content.





Reader comments
Share your comment
Your name and comment are published only after administrator approval. Your email address is never shown to visitors.
Be the first to comment.