CancerNetwork Members: Login | Register
Become a fan on  Facebook  Add us on  Google Plus Follow us on  Twitter Join us on LinkedIn Sign up for our Newsletters Subscribe to our RSS Feed

 

CancerNetwork SearchMedica Medline Drugs

Powered by SearchMedica

 
PUBLICATIONS
NEWS
PODCASTS
TOPICS
BLOGS
NURSES
PATIENTS
JOBS
CONFERENCES
CME
SUPPLEMENTS
 

Home » Gastrointestinal Cancers

ONCOLOGY. Vol. 26 No. 5
Pages: 1  2  3  
Previous
REVIEW ARTICLE 

Genetic Testing in Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Case-Based Approach

By Kasmintan Schrader, MD1, Kenneth Offit, MD, MPH1, Zsofia K. Stadler, MD1 | May 15, 2012
1Clinical Genetics Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York

Colon Cancer in the Setting of Polyposis

Case: Mrs. W is a 64-year-old woman with a past history of multiple colon polyps who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy because of anemia. Colonoscopy revealed an ulcerated cecal tumor, with biopsy confirming a moderately differentiated invasive adenocarcinoma. At 50 years of age, initial screening colonoscopy had revealed multiple polyps of differing types: six tubular adenomas, one villous adenoma, and three hyperplastic polyps. Subsequent intermittent colonoscopies identified several polyps each time. At 58 years of age, she was found to have a large villous adenoma requiring a segmental resection of the transverse colon. In light of her history of polyposis and colon cancer, you refer her to genetics.

FIGURE 7

Pedigree of Mrs. W's Family

Genetics evaluation: Apart from her mother’s history of a solitary polyp, there is no other known history of polyps in the family (Figure 7). Syndromes in which there is a predisposition for fewer than 100 adenomatous polyps include the autosomal dominant syndrome of attentuated familial adenomatous polyposis (AFAP) and the recessive syndrome of MYH-associated polyposis (MAP). Because of her history of cecal cancer, Lynch syndrome is also in the differential diagnosis. If there had been more than 100 polyps, familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) would have been more likely, and if the polyps had not been defined, one might have considered looking for signs of other polyposis conditions, such as Peutz-Jeghers, Cowden syndrome, juvenile polyposis, neurofibromatosis, multiple endocrine neoplasia type I, and tuberous sclerosis.

(MORE: Genetic Testing: The Bigger Picture)

FAP is an autosomal dominant syndrome that occurs in 1 of every 7000 to 22,000 individuals and is caused by germline mutations in the APC gene.[49] Twenty-five percent of mutations are de novo,[49] while a small fraction of cases result from somatic mosaicism,[50] explaining the lack of family history in a proportion of cases. The classic syndrome is characterized by adenomatous polyps carpeting the colon by young adulthood,[51] with the risk of colorectal cancer being virtually 100% (mean age at diagnosis, 40 years). Screening recommendations for classic FAP include annual flexible sigmoidoscopy beginning at age 10 to 15 years—or earlier if symptoms develop. Once polyps are identified, it is recommended that screening be switched to colonoscopy. For classic FAP, prophylactic colectomy is the treatment of choice. Upper gastrointestinal polyposis in FAP is common. Fundic gland polyps occur in the stomach and show focal dysplasia.[52] Although uncommon, there are reports of gastric cancer associated with FAP.[53,54] There is also a 95% risk of duodenal polyps, with an associated 5% risk of malignant progression.[55] When studied in a prospective manner, surveillance for duodenal adenocarcinoma and subsequent early referral for curative surgery does not demonstrate efficacy[55]; thus, recommendations exist for prophylactic surgery, dependent on the polyp burden.[32]

Other cancers associated with the syndrome include pancreatic, papillary thyroid, biliary tract, and brain (usually medulloblastoma)—and in children there is a risk of hepatoblastoma. Other benign extraintestinal manifestations include fibromas, lipomas, sebaceous and epidermoid cysts, nasopharyngeal angiofibromas, osteomas of the jaw, desmoid tumors, dental anomalies, and congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium [56].

Variations of classical FAP include AFAP, which is usually caused by mutations in the 3' or 5' regions of the APC gene, and which either gives rise to fewer polyps (< 100) or has a later age at onset of polyposis. AFAP rarely displays the extraintestinal manifestations of FAP. The average age for CRC in AFAP is 54 years.[57]

Mrs. W was tested for germline APC mutations and was found to be negative by sequencing and rearrangement testing. Subsequently, she was tested for biallelic mutations in MUTYH and was found to be positive. MYH-associated polyposis is inherited in an autosomal recessive manner. Thus far, the reported spectrum of disease has been mainly confined to the colon and upper gastrointestinal tract, where duodenal polyposis occurs relatively frequently. Recom-mendations for screening include colonoscopy beginning at age 25 to 30 years and repeated every 3 to 5 years until polyps are detected. Once adenomatous polyps are identified, the colonoscopy and polypectomy surveillance intervals are decreased to every 1 to 2 years. In order to detect duodenal malignancy, upper endoscopy with side viewing of the duodenum should be performed every 3 to 5 years beginning at age 30 to 35 years.[32] With regard to other potential cancers, the full spectrum of disease is still being defined. Prophylactic colectomy is undertaken depending on patient age, disease location, and polyp burden.

Mrs. W’s clinical picture could easily have been classified as AFAP, which has a 50% chance of being passed to each of her children. Fortunately, genetic testing revealed the underlying cause to be MAP, which is autosomal recessive. This means that her children will be obligate carriers of either one of her MYH mutations; however, the chance that they would be affected by the syndrome is very low—less than 1%, based on an MYH mutation–carrier frequency of 1% to 2% in the general population. While still not completely elucidated, the risk of CRC in monoallelic MYH mutation carriers may be moderately increased.[58] This case demonstrates that in APC-negative polyposis cases, an evaluation for MYH mutations should be pursued. Moreover, when unselected APC-negative index cases of FAP or AFAP were screened, regardless of polyposis subtype (typical, atypical, attenuated), the detection rate for biallelic MYH mutations was significant—17% (55 of 329 patients), and even higher ( 27%) when the denominator included only cases with the attenuated phenotype.[58] In general, the feature that more often characterized cases as attenuated was older age at onset and not necessarily a lower number of polyps.[58]

It was recently shown that homozygous BUB1B mutations previously thought to cause only the rare multivariegated aneuploidy syndrome (characterized by microcephaly, intellectual disability, and predisposition to multiple solid and hematologic cancers), predisposed a healthy adult to gastrointestinal polyps and colorectal cancer.[59] Detection of the patient’s underlying syndrome was only possible by karyotype analysis, which demonstrated mosaic aneuploidies, structural rearrangements, and premature chromatid separation secondary to the patient’s underlying genetic defect in mitosis. Investigation of these phenomena requires karyotype analysis of dividing cells and therefore can be performed using lymphocytes from blood, or alternatively, skin fibroblasts.[59]

Future Directions

In this review, we have focused on the strategy of targeted testing of genes known to be associated with particular gastrointestinal malignancies. This has been proven to be an effective strategy and has enabled the implementation of surveillance and life-prolonging risk-reduction surgeries in those at highest risk. However, clinical genetics is changing. Along with the advent of cheaper sequencing technologies will come the era of personalized medicine, which will give rise to the discovery of new cancer predisposition genes and the rediscovery of known genes, either in milder forms of the classic disease or in different roles. Thus, the unknown portions of the familial clustering wedges that are currently unaccounted for will start to fill. Furthermore, as we gain a higher-resolution picture of rare genetic events through sequencing of individuals or families, the collective impact of the rare variants and the common low-risk variants found in genome-wide association studies may explain the variable presentations seen within and between families.

Just as important as identifying a patient’s germline susceptibility is the ability to use that information to help the patient and his or her family make decisions about management, surveillance, and potential interventions. The information we give patients depends on our knowledge of the natural history of the cancer syndromes; therefore, recruitment into research protocols continues to be essential. Such research will allow us to capture the genotype-phenotype correlations that will help us determine the triggers of hereditary cancer and improve risk stratification within affected families.

Financial Disclosure: The authors have no significant financial interest or other relationship with the manufacturers of any products or providers of any service mentioned in this article.

Pages: 1  2  3  
Previous
 

Join the Conversation

Want to join the conversation? If you're a healthcare professional, we'd like to hear your comments. Just sign in or register today to become part of our growing, online community.

This article reviewed

Genetic Testing in Cancer: Ethical Issues

Genetic Testing: The Bigger Picture





References

1. Lichtenstein P, Holm NV, Verkasalo PK, et al. Environmental and heritable factors in the causation of cancer—analyses of cohorts of twins from Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:78-85.

2. Goldgar DE, Easton DF, Cannon-Albright LA, Skolnick MH. Systematic population-based assessment of cancer risk in first-degree relatives of cancer probands. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994;86:1600-8.

3. Stadler ZK, Thom P, Robson ME, et al. Genome-wide association studies of cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28:4255-4267.

4. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN V.1.2011. Available online from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_screening.pdf . Accessed Jan 24, 2012.

5. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2009. National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. Available from: http://seer.
cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009/
. Based on November 2011 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site in 2012.

6. Goggins M, Schutte M, Lu J, et al. Germline BRCA2 gene mutations in patients with apparently sporadic pancreatic carcinomas. Cancer Res. 1996;56:5360-4.

7. Hahn SA, Greenhalf B, Ellis I, et al. BRCA2 germline mutations in familial pancreatic carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:214-21.

8. Cancer risks in BRCA2 mutation carriers. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:1310-6.

9. Risch HA, McLaughlin JR, Cole DE, et al. Population BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation frequencies and cancer penetrances: a kin-cohort study in Ontario, Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:1694-1706.

10. Murphy KM, Brune KA, Griffin C, et al. Evaluation of candidate genes MAP2K4, MADH4, ACVR1B, and BRCA2 in familial pancreatic cancer: deleterious BRCA2 mutations in 17%. Cancer Res. 2002;62:3789-93.

11. Thompson D, Easton DF; Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Cancer incidence in BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1358-65.

12. Oddoux C, Struewing JP, Clayton CM, et al. The carrier frequency of the BRCA2 6174delT mutation among Ashkenazi Jewish individuals is approximately 1%. Nat Genet. 1996;14:188-90.

13. Ferrone CR, Levine DA, Tang LH, et al. BRCA germline mutations in Jewish patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:433-8.

14. Stadler ZK, Salo-Mullen E, Patil SM, et al. Prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish families with breast and pancreatic cancer. Cancer. 2012;118:493-9.

15. Su GH, Hruban RH, Bansal RK, et al. Germline and somatic mutations of the STK11/LKB1 Peutz-Jeghers gene in pancreatic and biliary cancers. Am J Pathol. 1999;154:1835-40.

16. Giardiello FM, Brensinger JD, Tersmette AC, et al. Very high risk of cancer in familial Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2000;119:1447-53.

17. Giardiello FM, Offerhaus GJ, Lee DH, et al. Increased risk of thyroid and pancreatic carcinoma in familial adenomatous polyposis. Gut. 1993;34:1394-6.

18. Kastrinos F, Mukherjee B, Tayob N, et al. Risk of pancreatic cancer in families with Lynch syndrome. JAMA. 2009;302:1790-5.

19. Lynch HT, Fusaro RM, Lynch JF, Brand R. Pancreatic cancer and the FAMMM syndrome. Fam Cancer. 2008;7:103-12.

20. Jones S, Hruban RH, Kamiyama M, et al. Exomic sequencing identifies PALB2 as a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene. Science. 2009;324:217.

21. Tischkowitz MD, Sabbaghian N, Hamel N, et al. Analysis of the gene coding for the BRCA2-interacting protein PALB2 in familial and sporadic pancreatic cancer. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:1183-6.

22. Schneider R, Slater EP, Sina M, et al. German national case collection for familial pancreatic cancer (FaPaCa): ten years experience. Fam Cancer. 2011;10:323-30.

23. Lowenfels AB, Maisonneuve P, DiMagno EP, et al. Hereditary pancreatitis and the risk of pancreatic cancer. International Hereditary Pancreatitis Study Group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89:442-6.

24. Rebours V, Boutron-Ruault MC, Schnee M, et al. Risk of pancreatic adenocarcinoma in patients with hereditary pancreatitis: a national exhaustive series. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:111-9.

25. Sheldon CD, Hodson ME, Carpenter LM, Swerdlow AJ. A cohort study of cystic fibrosis and malignancy. Br J Cancer. 1993;68:1025-8.

26. Lowery MA, Kelsen DP, Stadler ZK, et al. An emerging entity: pancreatic adenocarcinoma associated with a known BRCA mutation: clinical descriptors, treatment implications, and future directions. Oncologist. 2011;16:1397-1402.

27. Guilford P, Hopkins J, Harraway J, et al. E-cadherin germline mutations in familial gastric cancer. Nature. 1998;392:402-5.

28. Oliveira C, Senz J, Kaurah P, et al. Germline CDH1 deletions in hereditary diffuse gastric cancer families. Hum Mol Genet. 2009;18:1545-55.

29. Fitzgerald RC, Hardwick R, Huntsman D; International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium. Hereditary diffuse gastric cancer: updated consensus guidelines for clinical management and directions for future research. J Med Genet. 2010;47:436-44.

30. Barber ME, Save V, Carneiro F, et al. Histopathological and molecular analysis of gastrectomy specimens from hereditary diffuse gastric cancer patients has implications for endoscopic surveillance of individuals at risk. J Pathol. 2008;216:286-94.

31. Kaurah P, Fitzgerald R, Dwerryhouse S, Huntsman DG. Pregnancy after prophylactic total gastrectomy. Fam Cancer. 2010;9:331-4.

32. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Fort Washington, PA: NCCN V.2.2011. Available online from:http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colorectal_screening.pdf. Accessed Jan 24, 2012.

33. Jass JR. Role of the pathologist in the diagnosis of hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Dis Markers. 2004;20:215-24.

34. Sharma SG, Gulley ML. BRAF mutation testing in colorectal cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:1225-8.

35. Boland CR, Thibodeau SN, Hamilton SR, et al. A National Cancer Institute workshop on microsatellite instability for cancer detection and familial predisposition: development of international criteria for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 1998;58:5248-57.

36. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) Working Group. Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: genetic testing strategies in newly diagnosed individuals with colorectal cancer aimed at reducing morbidity and mortality from Lynch syndrome in relatives. Genet Med. 2009;11:35-41.

37. Parc Y, Boisson C, Thomas G, Olschwang S. Cancer risk in 348 French MSH2 or MLH1 gene carriers. J Med Genet. 2003;40:208-13.

38. Hampel H, Stephens JA, Pukkala E, et al. Cancer risk in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: later age of onset. Gastroenterology. 2005;129:415-21.

39. Stoffel E, Mukherjee B, Raymond VM, et al. Calculation of risk of colorectal and endometrial cancer among patients with Lynch syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:1621-7.

40. Aarnio M, Sankila R, Pukkala E, et al. Cancer risk in mutation carriers of DNA-mismatch-repair genes. Int J Cancer. 1999;81:214-8.

41. Aarnio M, Mecklin JP, Aaltonen LA, et al. Life-time risk of different cancers in hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) syndrome. Int J Cancer. 1995;64:430-3.

42. Parry S, Win AK, Parry B, et al. Metachronous colorectal cancer risk for mismatch repair gene mutation carriers: the advantage of more extensive colon surgery. Gut. 2011;60:950-7.

43. Vasen HF, Abdirahman M, Brohet R, et al. One to 2-year surveillance intervals reduce risk of colorectal cancer in families with Lynch syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2010;138:2300-6.

44. Lothe RA, Peltomaki P, Meling GI, et al. Genomic instability in colorectal cancer: relationship to clinicopathological variables and family history. Cancer Res. 1993;53:5849-52.

45. Gryfe R, Kim H, Hsieh ET, et al. Tumor microsatellite instability and clinical outcome in young patients with colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:69-77.

46. Popat S, Hubner R, Houlston RS. Systematic review of microsatellite instability and colorectal cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:609-18.

47. Ribic CM, Sargent DJ, Moore MJ, et al. Tumor microsatellite-instability status as a predictor of benefit from fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:247-57.

48. Sargent DJ, Marsoni S, Monges G, et al. Defective mismatch repair as a predictive marker for lack of efficacy of fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy in colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3219-26.

49. Bisgaard ML, Fenger K, Bulow S, et al. Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP): frequency, penetrance, and mutation rate. Hum Mutat. 1994;3:121-5.

50. Aretz S, Stienen D, Friedrichs N, et al. Somatic APC mosaicism: a frequent cause of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Hum Mutat. 2007;28:985-92.

51. Petersen GM, Slack J, Nakamura Y. Screening guidelines and premorbid diagnosis of familial adenomatous polyposis using linkage. Gastroenterology. 1991;
100:1658-64.

52. Bianchi LK, Burke CA, Bennett AE, et al. Fundic gland polyp dysplasia is common in familial adenomatous polyposis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6:180-5.

53. Lynch HT, Snyder C, Davies JM, et al. FAP, gastric cancer, and genetic counseling featuring children and young adults: a family study and review. Fam Cancer. 2010;9:581-8.

54. Garrean S, Hering J, Saied A, et al. Gastric adenocarcinoma arising from fundic gland polyps in a patient with familial adenomatous polyposis syndrome. Am Surg. 2008;74:79-83.

55. Groves CJ, Saunders BP, Spigelman AD, Phillips RK. Duodenal cancer in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP): results of a 10 year prospective study. Gut. 2002;50:636-41.

56. Half E, Bercovich D, Rozen P. Familial adenomatous polyposis. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2009;4:22.

57. Nielsen M, Hes FJ, Nagengast FM, et al. Germline mutations in APC and MUTYH are responsible for the majority of families with attenuated familial adenomatous polyposis. Clin Genet. 2007;71:427-33.

58. Aretz S, Uhlhaas S, Goergens H, et al. MUTYH-associated polyposis: 70 of 71 patients with biallelic mutations present with an attenuated or atypical phenotype. Int J Cancer. 2006;119:807-14.

59. Rio Frio T, Lavoie J, Hamel N, et al. Homozygous BUB1B mutation and susceptibility to gastrointestinal neoplasia. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2628-37.

60. Couch FJ, Johnson MR, Rabe KG, et al. The prevalence of BRCA2 mutations in familial pancreatic cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:342-6.

61. McWilliams RR, Wieben ED, Rabe KG, et al. Prevalence of CDKN2A mutations in pancreatic cancer patients: implications for genetic counseling. Eur J Hum Genet. 2011;19:472-8.

62. Witt H, Luck W, Hennies HC, et al. Mutations in the gene encoding the serine protease inhibitor, Kazal type 1 are associated with chronic pancreatitis. Nat Genet 2000;25:213-6.

63. Rittenhouse DW, Talbott VA, Anklesaria Z, et al. Subject review: pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the setting of mutations in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene: case report and review of the literature. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011;15:2284-90.

64. McWilliams RR, Petersen GM, Rabe KG, et al. Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene mutations and risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Cancer. 2010;116:203-9.

65. Geary J, Sasieni P, Houlston R, et al. Gene-related cancer spectrum in families with hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC). Fam Cancer. 2007.

66. Lynch HT, Grady W, Suriano G, Huntsman D. Gastric cancer: new genetic developments. J Surg Oncol. 2005;90:114-33; discussion 133.

67. Risch HA, McLaughlin JR, Cole DE, et al. Prevalence and penetrance of germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a population series of 649 women with ovarian cancer. Am J Hum Genet. 2001;68:700-10.

68. Giardiello FM, Brensinger JD, Tersmette AC, et al. Very high risk of cancer in familial Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Gastroenterology. 2000;119:1447-53.

69. Jagelman DG, DeCosse JJ, Bussey HJ. Upper gastrointestinal cancer in familial adenomatous polyposis. Lancet. 1988;1:1149-51.

70. Sugano K. Gastric cancer: pathogenesis, screening, and treatment. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2008;18:513-22.

71. Oliveira C, Ferreira P, Nabais S, et al. E-Cadherin (CDH1) and p53 rather than SMAD4 and Caspase-10 germline mutations contribute to genetic predisposition in Portuguese gastric cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2004; 40:1897-1903.

72. Keller G, Vogelsang H, Becker I, et al. Germline mutations of the E-cadherin(CDH1) and TP53 genes, rather than of RUNX3 and HPP1, contribute to genetic predisposition in German gastric cancer patients. J Med Genet. 2004;41:e89.

73. Kim IJ, Park JH, Kang HC, et al. A novel germline mutation in the MET extracellular domain in a Korean patient with the diffuse type of familiar gastric cancer. J Med Genet. 2003;40:e97.

74. Bartsch DK, Sina-Frey M, Lang S, et al. CDKN2A germline mutations in familial pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 2002;236:730-7.

75. Leachman SA, Carucci J, Kohlmann W, et al. Selection criteria for genetic assessment of patients with familial melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;61:677.e1-677.14.

76. Tomlinson IP, Houlston RS. Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. J Med Genet. 1997;34:1007-11.

77. Klein AP. Genetic susceptibility to pancreatic cancer. Mol Carcinog. 2012;51:14-24.

78. Tinat J, Bougeard G, Baert-Desurmont S, et al. 2009 version of the Chompret criteria for Li Fraumeni syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:e108-9; author reply e110.


 
RELATED CONTENT

Axitinib Fails to Improve Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
May 6, 2013
A 47-Year-Old Patient With Chronic Abdominal Pain
April 26, 2013
Endometrial Cancer at Young Age Ups Risk for Colorectal Cancer
April 22, 2013
Smoking Linked to Poorer Prognosis in Colon Cancer
April 13, 2013
New Test Could Detect Pancreatic Cancer Early
March 29, 2013
 
TOPIC INDEX

Cancer Types

 
  • Breast
  • Breast (HER2+)
  • Breast (Triple-Negative)
  • CML
  • Colorectal
  • Gastrointestinal
  • GIST
  • Genitourinary
  • Gynecologic
  • Head & Neck
  • Hematology
  • Kidney (Renal Cell)
  • Leukemia
  • Lung
  • Lymphoma
  • Melanoma
  • Multiple Myeloma
  • Ovarian
  • Prostate
  • Sarcoma

Supportive Care

More Topics

  • Bone Metastases
  • End-of-Life Care
  • Palliative Care
  • Ethics in Oncology
  • Practice Management
  • Practice & Policy


All Topics 

 
IMAGE IQ

A 47-Year-Old Patient With Chronic Abdominal Pain
Brian Morse, MD , April 26, 2013

A 47-year-old male with complaints of chronic abdominal pain and episodes of flushing presents for evaluation. What is your diagnosis?


 
MOST POPULAR
  • Most Popular
  • Most Emailed
  • Most Recent
  • Colorectal Lesions
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • Skin Lesions
  • Slide Show: Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Dermatologic Adverse Events Associated With Targeted Therapies
  • Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer: An Update on Treatment
  • Colorectal Lesions
  • ONS: Understanding Spirituality and How It Can Be Used to Help Patients
  • New AUA Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Screening
  • 50 Shades of Pink—And Why It Helps to Know the Difference
  • Genomics Studies Identify Testicular Cancer Risk Variants
  • Lower Back Pain in an Elderly Man With a History of Localized Prostate Cancer
  • FDA Approves Erlotinib (Tarceva) as First-Line Lung Cancer Therapy for Certain Patients
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
 
COMMENTS
  • Most Commented
  • Most Recent
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • Financial Toxicity, Part II: How Can We Help With the Burden of Treatment-Related Costs?
  • Patient Quality of Life Endpoints in Oncology Trials, Part II
  • Who's Coding Whom?
  • “How Do I Say This Nicely? Your Oncologist Wasn't Following Guidelines”
  • Cancer Metabolism as a Therapeutic Target
  • Study: Cholesterol Drugs Reduced Risk of Prostate Cancer Death
  • “This Is My Last Day on Earth”
  • ONS: Safe Handling of Chemotherapy
  • Financial Toxicity, Part II: How Can We Help With the Burden of Treatment-Related Costs?
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter


 
SearchMedica SEARCH RESULTS

Find peer-reviewed literature and websites for practicing medical professionals

CME on Gastrointestinal Cancer
Evidence on Gastrointestinal Cancer
Guidelines on Gastrointestinal Cancer
Patient Education on Gastrointestinal Cancer
Clinical Trials on Gastrointestinal Cancer
Practical Articles on Gastrointestinal Cancer
Research and Reviews on Gastrointestinal Cancer
All "Gastrointestinal Cancer" results

CancerNetwork | ConsultantLive | Diagnostic Imaging | Musculoskeletal Network | OBGYN.net | PediatricsConsultantLive |
Physicians Practice | Psychiatric Times | SearchMedica | Medical Resources

© 1996 - 2013 UBM Medica LLC, a UBM company
Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Advertising Information - Editorial Policy Statement - UBM Medica Network Privacy Policy