4.5 Article

Molecular Cytogenetic Characterization of Esophageal Cancer Detected by Comparative Genomic Hybridization

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 167-174

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.20385

Keywords

comparative genomic hybridization (CGH); esophageal cancer (EC); nearby nontumor tissues

Funding

  1. Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital [KMUH-IRB-960348]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: Detection of cytogenetic alterations in esophageal cancer (EC). A total of 40 cases of primary EC and their paired nearby nontumor tissues were collected. The comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) is the technique that brings out the gains and losses of chromosome fragments and was applied to determine the aberrations from the tissue DNA. In noncancer tissues, the gains were at 19p (5/40, 13%), 20q (5/40, 13%), and losses at 9p (13/40, 33%), 2q (10/40, 25%), 12q (10/40, 25%), 13q (10/40, 25%), 5q (9/40, 23%), 6q (9/40, 23%), 7q (9/40, 23%), and 8p (9/40, 23%). Two cases in nontumor tissues showed no CGH change. In the 40 cases of primary EC, the gains were at 8q (10/40, 25%), 3q (9/40, 23%), 2q (7/40, 18%), and 13q (7/40, 18%), and the losses were at 1q (8/40, 20%), 4q (8/40, 20%), 3p (7/40, 18%), 5q (7/40, 18%), and 18q (7/40, 18%) in comparison with paired nearby noncancerous tissues. We found that the loss aberrations were on 1q, 2p, 3p, 5q, 6q, 9p, 11p, 15q, 16q, 18q, 21q and gains on 20p in both tumor and nontumor tissues; nevertheless, -4p, -7q, -8p, -10q, -12q, -13q, -14q and +17p, +19q, +22q were only found in nontumor tissues and +1q, + 2pq, +3q, -4q, +4q, +5q, 7p, +8q, +10q, +12q, +13q, +14q -17p, -19pq, -22q in EC. From these results, we suggest that most of the tissues near the cancer parts of EC may be considered as a precancerous region. The alteration between cancer and noncancer tissues may play a role in the development of EC. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 24:167-174, 2010. (C) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available