The first scientific reports of childhood cancers such as Virchow glioma (neuroblastoma), Wilms tumor (nephroblastoma), and Ewing sarcoma provided a classification system based on organ involvement but shed little light on the natural causes of these diseases. Subsequent study of cancer cells and animal tumors, and in particular Boveri's analysis of cell mitoses and Rous' study of oncogenic viruses, revealed that cancer is at least in part a disease of genes and their aberrations.

With the advent of molecular biology, we learned that animal oncogenic viruses contain mutant versions of cellular genes, termed oncogenes, as well as gene products that negatively regulate endogenous tumor suppressor genes. Expressed in normal cells, these tumorigenic viral genes can cause unrestrained proliferation and, ultimately, immortalization and malignant transformation, leading to the concept that human cancer is caused by the dysregulation of endogenous protooncogenes and tumor suppressor genes.

In particular, the idea of endogenous tumor suppressor gene inactivation in human cancers is strongly supported by (1) the analysis of the age dependence of retinoblastoma incidence and (2) the finding that in children who inherit one mutant allele, bilateral tumors develop at an earlier age than in persons who have tumors that develop as a result of spontaneous biallelic inactivation. Although this “two-hit” model provides a powerful explanation of the incidence of retinoblastomas, similar analyses of other human cancers led to the conclusion that at least six different genetic mutations are needed to explain the apparent age-dependent incidence of some human tumors. Indeed, a large majority of human cancers contain many gene mutations in a complex clonal architecture, as revealed by recent analysis of tumor genomes by next-generation sequencing. Some tumors, however—particularly those in children—can have surprisingly low mutation rates. Finally, even cancers with extremely low numbers of gene mutations contain mutations outside of genes that could contribute to tumorigenesis. Consequently, the extent to which alterations in noncoding genetic elements and epigenetic changes have the potential to cooperate with or substitute for genetic mutations has become an active area of investigation.

In addition to the polygenic nature of human cancers, many features of tumor cells are not directly explained by the mutation of cancer-causing genes but instead involve complex cell and tissue biologic systems. These “hallmarks of cancer,” which include limitless cell replication, self-sufficiency in growth signaling, circumvention of cell death, immune system evasion, and the ability to metastasize, provide an expedient phenomenologic model to understand cancer cell behavior.

Recently, contributions from changes in the chemical modifications of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and chromatin have been increasingly implicated in cancer pathogenesis. These changes are often referred to as “epigenetic” because they may have the potential to result in somatically heritable changes in gene expression and phenotype that do not result directly from changes in DNA composition. Normal development provides a vivid illustration of the power of epigenetic changes, because virtually every cell in the body contains mostly identical coding DNA sequences and yet cells display markedly different behaviors and fates. For example, mature neurons have a distinct differentiated appearance and never divide, whereas hematopoietic stem cells divide throughout a person's lifetime. Further, these cellular fates remain stable over years of somatic cell division. Given the role of epigenetic regulation in the control of cell fate, perhaps it is not surprising that epigenetic perturbations may also contribute to oncogenesis. Although they are conceptually distinct, genetic and epigenetic dysregulation can be closely associated in cancer cells, while genetic mutations of epigenetic regulators are increasingly recognized, particularly in childhood tumors.

Whereas somatic cancer mutations are relatively easy to identify by comparing the sequence of DNA between tumor and nontumor cells, epigenetic causes of cancer are much more difficult to discern because the normal epigenetic state varies with cell type, which makes defining aberrant features a challenge. With respect to DNA methylation, it has become evident that cancer genomes overall tend to be hypomethylated compared with normal tissues and that they have focal areas of hypermethylation in the promoters of specific genes associated with silencing of gene expression. Similarly, the recent discovery of mutations in genes that regulate chromatin structure suggests that aberrant chromatin modifications may contribute to tumorigenesis via epigenetic dysregulation rather than through the induction of additional genetic mutations, although in most cases this conjecture has yet to be proven.

Arguably, our ability to decipher the biologic basis of human cancer will depend on understanding the relationship between molecular aberrations and dysregulated properties of cancer cells. Awareness of the importance of this problem is increasing in the field of pediatric oncology, leading to the recognition that although some childhood tumors can have a remarkably low number of recurrently mutated genes, others can contain thousands of DNA substitutions and complex chromosomal rearrangements. Pediatric cancers may be conceptually distinct from those that occur in adults, because in the absence of a syndromic predisposition, children otherwise have relatively low rates of somatic genetic alterations and toxin exposures due to aging. Thus childhood cancers may involve unique mechanisms of tumorigenesis.

In this chapter we review the mechanisms of molecular pathogenesis of childhood cancers. Our goal is not to provide a comprehensive encyclopedia (electronic publishing and online databases * now enable ready access to this information) but to develop a systematic classification of the molecular lesions responsible for childhood tumors, with a focus on biologic mechanisms and functional principles. Instead of organizing this chapter on the basis of cancer types, which are covered individually in other chapters of this volume, we have attempted to develop a functional framework that we hope will provide helpful insights into the relationship between molecular aberrations and behaviors of cancer cells sui generis . Such an approach should inform the development of improved clinical therapies, particularly if cancer treatment is to become more precise through the use of rationally targeted agents.

Functional Genetics of Childhood Cancer Predisposition Syndromes

* At the time of this writing, the following publicly accessible databases of cancer-associated mutations and structural aberrations are available: http://target.cancer.gov ; http://pediatriccancergenomeproject.org ; http://www.sanger.ac.uk/genetics/CGP ; and http://cansar.icr.ac.uk .

The study of childhood cancer predisposition syndromes is an important source of information about the genetic basis of human cancers. Indeed, the retinoblastoma 1 (RB1) gene, which is mutated in familial retinoblastomas, was the first human tumor suppressor gene identified. What follows is an overview of known genes mutated in childhood cancer predisposition syndromes based on the major cell biologic pathways thought to be perturbed by the inherited gene mutations.

Dysregulation of Cell Division and Growth

A large number of childhood cancer predisposition syndromes involve mutations of genes that regulate cell growth and division. One of the first to be described, the RB1 gene, is mutated in children who are predisposed to the development of retinoblastoma, pinealoblastoma, and osteosarcoma. The RB1 gene is part of the G1 cell cycle checkpoint, where its product directly binds and regulates the activity of the E2F family of transcription factors and the DREAM chromatin remodeling complex in response to stress. Cancer-causing deletions and nonsense mutations of RB1 can cause entry into the cell cycle by otherwise quiescent cells and mitigation of senescence that limits cellular life span. Whereas loss of RB1 in cellular and mouse models causes defects in mitotic chromosome segregation that lead to aneuploidy, most human retinoblastomas are largely diploid, suggesting that the canonic chromosome segregation effects of RB1 inactivation in human retinoblasts are functionally compensated. Human retinoblastomas invariably exhibit biallelic inactivation of RB1 , but otherwise often have a comparatively low mutation rate. One study found that RB1 was the only known cancer gene mutated in these tumors. However, additional subclonal DNA mutations were observed, with some mutations located outside of coding regions, which may cooperate with RB1 loss to drive retinoblastoma formation. In addition, epigenetic alterations have also been implicated in cooperating with RB1 mutation.

The adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) gene, which is mutated in children with familial adenomatous polyposis who are predisposed to hepatoblastoma and colon carcinoma, also controls the G1 cell cycle checkpoint. APC serves as a ubiquitin ligase that regulates the protein stability of β-catenin, which controls transcription of cyclins, including cyclin D, which in turn associates with cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK)4/6 to negatively regulate RB1 activity. Disease-associated dominant mutations of APC tend to occur in distinct regions of the gene, leading to the generation of truncated protein products, consistent with the requirement of residual or neomorphic activity of the mutant proteins. Because APC regulates the stability of many proteins—and because, in addition to the cell cycle progression, β-catenin also regulates cell adhesion and differentiation—the mechanism of tumorigenesis induced by APC mutations is thought to be pleiotropic.

In addition to mutations of genes whose products regulate cell division, cancer-causing mutations also directly dysregulate mitogenic signaling and cell growth. The most common cancer predisposition syndrome, neurofibromatosis, is predominantly caused by autosomal-dominant inheritance of inactivating mutations of the neurofibromin 1 (NF1) gene, with the less frequent form caused by mutations of neurofibromin 2 (NF2) or merlin . Children with mutations of NF1 are predisposed to the development of benign and malignant tumors, including gliomas, peripheral nerve sheath tumors, pheochromocytomas, and leukemias. NF1 is a large protein that is not completely understood but is known to regulate the activity of rat sarcoma (Ras). In turn, NF1 mutant tumors exhibit increased Ras guanosine triphosphate hydrolase activity, which stimulates the mitogen-activated protein and AKT kinase cascades that, among other effects, result in the transcription of genes involved in cell growth and stimulation of protein synthesis. Although most patients with germline NF1 mutations experience the development of neurofibromas, which harbor biallelic inactivation of the gene, only a minority of these tumors evolve to become malignant. This finding indicates that disease-associated NF1 mutations have limited transforming ability, and that additional lesions are required for carcinogenesis.

The complex relationship between cancer-causing gene mutations and their effects on tumorigenesis is also evident from mutations of ras genes themselves. Genes related to ras , including Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) , neuroblastoma rat sarcoma ( NRAS) , and Harvey rat sarcoma (HRAS) , are some of the first human protooncogenes identified, based on the involvement of the corresponding viral oncogenes in the pathogenesis of rat sarcomas. However, whereas NF1 mutations stimulate Ras activity and cause neurofibromatosis, patients with inherited mutations of the ras genes instead experience the development of cardiofaciocutaneous, Noonan, LEOPARD, and Costello syndromes. Inherited mutations of the ras genes are missense activating mutations, analogous to the oncogenic viral ras mutations, yet the spectrum of tumor phenotypes in these patients is distinct. In addition to gliomas these phenotypes also include leukemias, neuroblastomas, and rhabdomyosarcomas. These differences between NF1- and ras -mutant cancer predisposition syndromes are not simply due to differences in tissue expression of the two genes, because both appear to be expressed in neuronal, mesenchymal, and hematopoietic tissues. Rather, they may reflect the developmental consequences of Ras activation as a result of the inactivation of an endogenous negative regulator as opposed to direct mutational activation of an oncogenic signaling pathway, a property that may inform the development of strategies to target these lesions therapeutically.

DNA Repair and Genome Instability

The prevention of de novo cancer-causing mutations ultimately depends on efficient DNA repair and maintenance of genome stability. Indeed, several cancer predisposition syndromes involve defective DNA repair. For example, inherited mutations of the tumor protein 53 ( TP53) tumor suppressor gene cause most cases of Li-Fraumeni syndrome, which is associated with the predisposition to sarcomas, leukemias, and breast carcinomas. The genotype-phenotype relationship of TP53 cancer-causing mutations is complex, with some mutations having apparent loss-of-function, dominant-negative, or gain-of-function properties in experimental models. p53 regulates the expression of genes involved in cell division, apoptosis, and DNA repair, and its mutation in cells leads to chromosomal instability. This process is mediated partly by direct effects of p53 on the transcription and translation of target genes, as well as via feedback interaction with its ubiquitin ligase murine double minute 2 (MDM2), which also has oncogenic effects independent of its negative regulation of p53. As a result, the dysregulation of cellular DNA damage and stress response by TP53 mutations is profoundly tumorigenic, contributing to the somatic pathogenesis of most human cancers. The p53-MDM2 feedback regulation also complicates therapeutic targeting, because inhibition of MDM2 aimed at restoring p53 tumor suppression may in effect enhance the deleterious activity of gain-of-function p53 mutant proteins.

Defective DNA damage response is also a hallmark of Fanconi anemia (FA), a cancer predisposition syndrome characterized by bone marrow failure and development of myelodysplasia, leukemia, and carcinomas. Although mutations of more than 15 different genes can cause FA, most of the known FA-mutant gene products physically interact with the components of a conserved DNA damage response mechanism, breast cancer 1 (BRCA1), ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), Nijmegen breakage syndrome 1 (NBS1), and radiation-sensitive 51 (RAD51), and are required for the repair of chromosome defects that occur during homologous recombination. FA pathway–deficient cells are hypersensitive to DNA-damaging agents, and over time they accumulate deleterious gene mutations (usually segmental deletions).

Several other chromosome-breakage syndromes with cancer predisposition involve defects in closely related biochemical pathways of DNA repair of homologous recombination errors, such as ataxia telangiectasia (due to mutations of ATM ), Nijmegen breakage syndrome (due to mutations of NBS1 ), and Bloom syndrome (due to mutations of BLM ). Genes involved in nucleotide excision or transcription-coupled DNA repair can also be mutated and cause the cancer predisposition syndromes xeroderma pigmentosum and Cockayne syndrome, usually due to accumulation of ultraviolet radiation–induced mutations (typically nucleotide substitutions).

Aberrant Gene Expression

Another hallmark of cancer cells is expression of genes in inappropriate developmental states, often driven by mutations of gene products that regulate gene expression. For example, patients with inherited mutations of the Wilms tumor 1 (WT1) gene experience development of the Denys-Drash syndrome (due to loss-of-function missense mutations) or the Wilms tumor, aniridia, genitourinary anomalies, and mental retardation (WAGR) syndrome (due to gene deletions), both with predisposition to the development of bilateral Wilms tumors. In spite of years of study, the function of the WT1 protein is incompletely understood. WT1 is a key regulator of mesenchymal cell development, including kidney mesenchyme, in part through its functions as a transcriptional repressor. However, WT1 also interacts with messenger RNA (mRNA) and splicing factors, consistent with possible posttranscriptional functions in regulation of gene expression. In addition, although recessive mutations of WT1 appear consistent with its tumor suppressive functions in Wilms tumorigenesis, in other developmental and tissue contexts, particularly myeloid leukemias, WT1 can enhance cell survival and proliferation and as a result can act as an oncogene or haploinsufficient tumor suppressor gene. Such tissue-dependent phenotypes are characteristic of cancer-associated genes that affect gene expression and cell fate determination, insofar as the functional consequences of mutations depend on the spectrum of expressed genes themselves and differentiation state in general.

Tumorigenesis due to aberrant regulation of gene expression can also occur posttranscriptionally, as in the case of inherited mutations of the DICER1 gene, which predispose to the development of pleuropulmonary blastoma, cystic nephroma, and rhabdomyosarcoma. DICER1 is a ribonuclease that is required for the generation of endogenous microRNAs (miRNAs), which negatively regulate gene expression by inducing degradation and translational blockade of specific mRNAs. Cancer-associated mutations affect conserved, enzymatically required residues in DICER1 and cause defective miRNA processing, leading to increased expression of target genes. The reason inherited DICER1 mutations predispose specifically to the development of pleuropulmonary blastoma, cystic nephroma, and rhabdomyosarcoma is not understood, but it is reasonable to hypothesize that this predisposition is due to the specific requirements for miRNA-mediated gene expression in these tissues or expression of specific target protooncogenes.

You're Reading a Preview

Become a Clinical Tree membership for Full access and enjoy Unlimited articles

Become membership

If you are a member. Log in here