4.3 Article

Genetic Markers of Malignant Transformation in Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm of the Pancreas A Meta-Analysis

Journal

PANCREAS
Volume 41, Issue 8, Pages 1195-1205

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e3182580fb4

Keywords

telomerase; mucin; pancreatic cancer; intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm; IPMN; Sonic hedgehog; cyclooxygenase 2; p53; hTERT; Cox2; kRas; marker

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between specific genetic alterations and malignant transformation in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas. Methods: Quantitative meta-analysis was conducted of studies through October 2010 that adhered to the 1996 World Health Organization guidelines for distinguishing adenoma and borderline IPMN versus carcinoma in surgically resected specimens using a random-effects model. We developed a 6-point scoring system to assess study quality. Results: Thirty-nine studies (1235 IPMN samples) satisfied the inclusion criteria, and we conducted pooled analysis of 8 genetic markers: MUC1, MUC2, MUC5AC, kRas, p53, hTERT (human telomerase reverse transcriptase), cyclooxygenase 2, and Shh (Sonic hedgehog). Markers having the strongest association with malignant IPMN were hTERT (odds ratio [OR], 11.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.5-36.7) and Shh (OR, 6.9; 95% CI, 2.4-20.2), whereas MUC5AC (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.1-13.9) and kRas (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-4.3) showed weak association with IPMN histologic progression. Conclusions: Expression of hTERT is strongly associated with malignant transformation in IPMN, consistent with up-regulation of hTERT as a key step in progression of IPMN to cancer. Expression of kRas and MUC5AC is common but not strongly associated with IPMN histologic progression. The quality criteria used here may guide future reporting of genetic markers related to malignant transformation of IPMN.

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