4.7 Article

Genetic and epigenetic alterations of Ras signalling pathway in colorectal neoplasia: analysis based on tumour clinicopathological features

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 97, Issue 10, Pages 1425-1431

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604014

Keywords

RASSF2; methylation; K-ras/BRAF mutations; Ras signalling pathway; colorectal adenoma; colorectal cancer

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Activation of RAS signalling induced by K-ras/BRAF mutations is a hallmark of colorectal tumours. In addition, Ras association domain families 1 and 2 (RASSF1 and RASSF2), the negative regulators of K-ras, are often inactivated by methylation of the promoter region in those tumours. However, reports showing differences in the occurrence of these alterations on the basis of tumour characteristics have been scarce. We analysed K-ras/BRAF mutations and the methylation status of RASSF1 and RASSF2 promoter regions in 120 colorectal adenomas with respect to their clinicopathological features. K-ras/BRAF mutations and RASSF2 methylation were observed in 49 (41%) and 30 (25%) of the samples, respectively, while RASSF1 methylation was observed in only 3 (2.5%). Adenomas with RASSF2 methylation often carried K-ras/BRAF mutations simultaneously (22 out of 30, P<0.01). Multivariate analysis revealed that the concomitance of these alterations was frequently observed in serrated adenomas (odds ratio (OR) 11.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.96-63.00), but rarely in adenomas located in the sigmoid or descending colon (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.03-0.58). A comparison between adenomas and cancers showed a significantly higher prevalence of these alterations in cancers than in adenomas in the proximal colon (58 vs 27%, P = 0.02). Frequency and the time point of the occurrence of Ras signalling disorders differ according to colorectal neoplasia's characteristics, particularly the location.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available