4.3 Article

Quantitative evaluation of p16INK4a promoter methylation using pyrosequencing in de novo diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Journal

LEUKEMIA RESEARCH
Volume 35, Issue 4, Pages 438-443

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.leukres.2010.10.001

Keywords

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; p16(INK4a); Hypermethylation; Pyrosequencing; Methylation-specific PCR

Funding

  1. Swedish Cancer Society
  2. Lion's Cancer Research Foundation, Uppsala
  3. Cancer Foundation at Uppsala University Hospital, Sweden

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The p16(INK4a) tumor suppressor gene can be inactivated by a variety of events including promoter hyper-methylation. In diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), p16(INK4a) methylation has been associated with advanced disease stage and higher IPI. The prognostic impact of p16(INK4a) methylation in DLBCL remains unclear; however, it has been suggested to correlate with inferior outcome. To further investigate the clinical impact of p16(INK4a) methylation in DLBCL, promoter methylation of this gene was assessed quantitatively by pyrosequencing. Forty-two of 113 (37%) DLBCL patients with methylation level above 5% were categorized as methylated and subsequently divided into low, intermediate and high methylation categories. Overall, no association was shown between the extent of p16(INK4a) methylation and patients' clinical characteristics, except disease stage (P = 0.049). Moreover, we could not reveal any impact of p16(INK4a) methylation on lymphoma-specific survival. Although > 25% of p16(INK4a) methylation correlated with a better progression-free survival (P = 0.048) in patients < 65 years old, the significance of this finding, if any, needs to be further investigated. In conclusion, our finding questions the role of p16(INK4a) promoter methylation as a negative prognostic factor in DLBCL. (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available