4.6 Article

Ependymoma gene expression profiles associated with histological subtype, proliferation, and patient survival

Journal

ACTA NEUROPATHOLOGICA
Volume 113, Issue 3, Pages 325-337

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00401-006-0190-5

Keywords

ependymoma; subependymoma; microarray analysis; overall survival; Ki-67

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ependymomas are primary tumors of the central nervous system that typically originate from the walls of the cerebral ventricles or from the spinal canal. The pathogenesis of these tumors is poorly understood, and prognostic assessment based on histologic features and clinical parameters is difficult. The aim of this study was to investigate the molecular heterogeneity of ependymomas. We used cDNA microarrays and RT-PCR to examine gene expression in 47 ependymomas. We present results for five comparisons: (1) tumors from children and adults with poor versus favorable outcome, (2) tumors from children with poor versus favorable outcome, (3) tumors with high versus low proliferation indices, (4) subependymomas versus myxopapillary ependymomas, and (5) spinal versus intracranial ependymomas. For patients with an overall survival > 10 years after diagnosis, we identified 27 genes associated with favorable prognosis. In contrast, overexpression of BNIP3, MRC1, EPHB3, GLIS3, CDK4, COL4A2, EBP, NRCAM, and CCNA1 genes in tumors with high proliferation indices was associated with a poor outcome. Thirty genes, including ETV6, YWHAE, TOP2A, TLR2, IRAK1, TIA1, and UFD1L were found to be highly expressed in subependymomas but not myxopapillary ependymomas. Also, 30 genes were differentially expressed in spinal versus intracranial ependymomas. There was no relationship between expression profiles and tumor grade, patient age, and patient gender. Our results provide insight into specific molecular events underlying ependymoma tumorigenesis and may contribute to more accurate diagnosis and prediction of clinical outcome.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available