4.7 Article

Aberrant Gene Methylation Is a Biomarker for the Detection of Cancer Cells in Peritoneal Wash Samples from Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 10, Pages 3013-3019

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-011-1636-0

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. To assess whether gene methylation in peritoneal fluid (PF) is clinically feasible for determining micrometastasis to the peritoneum in gastric cancer. Methods. The gene methylation of BNIP3, CHFR, CYP1B1, MINT25, SFRP2, and RASSF2 were analyzed in 107 specimens of PF by quantitative methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction. All patients were placed into one of 3 groups: group A (n = 42), patients with depth of cancer invasion at muscularis propria (MP) or less than MP; group B (n = 45), depth of cancer invasion beyond the MP; and group C (n = 20), histologically diagnosed peritoneal metastasis or cancer cells cytologically defined in the peritoneal cavity. Patients in both groups A and B were diagnosed as having no cancer cells by peritoneal cytology and histology. Results. The methylation status of the 6 genes was found to be significantly different among the 3 groups (group A, 0-5%; group B, 0-15%; group C, 15-45%; P < 0.01). Furthermore, the rate of positive methylation in any of the 6 genes was significantly different in each group (group A, 7%; group B, 20%; group C, 75%; P < 0.001). Three of 9 patients in group B with positive methylation in any of 6 genes experienced peritoneal recurrence. On the other hand, only 1 of 36 patients without gene methylation experienced peritoneal recurrence (P < 0.05). Conclusions. DNA methylation in PFs is a possible marker detecting occult neoplastic cells on the peritoneum. Methylation analysis along with a cytological examination might therefore improve the positive detection of cancer cells in PF of gastric cancer.

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