3.8 Article

Comparative genomic hybridization detects specific cytogenetic abnormalities in pediatric ependymomas and choroid plexus papillomas

Journal

CANCER GENETICS AND CYTOGENETICS
Volume 136, Issue 2, Pages 121-125

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0165-4608(02)00516-2

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pathogenesis and genetic abnormalities of ependymomas are not well known and differential diagnosis with choroid plexus tumors may be difficult when these tumors are located in the ventricles. We analyzed 16 samples of primary pediatric ependymomas and seven choroid plexus tumors for significant gains or losses of genomic DNA, using comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). Four ependymoma samples were obtained after surgery for relapse, including one patient whose tumor was analyzed at diagnosis and at first and second relapses. Three out of 16 ependymomas and none of the choroid plexus tumors appeared normal by CGH. In the remaining ependymomas, the number of regions with genomic imbalance was limited. The most frequent copy number abnormality in ependymomas was 22q loss. In one patient from whom multiple samples could be analyzed during tumor progression, no abnormality was present at diagnosis; gain of chromosome 9 and loss of 6q were observed at first relapse and, at second relapse, additional genomic imbalances were loss of 3p, 10q, and chromosome 15. In choroid plexus tumors, recurrent abnormalities were gains of chromosome 7 and region 12q. The recurrent chromosomal abnormalities were clearly different between ependymomas and choroid plexus papillomas (CPP). Recurrent loss of 22q suggests that this region harbors tumor suppressor genes important in the pathogenesis of ependymomas; however, other pathogenic pathways may exist involving 6q and chromosome 10 losses or gain of 1q and chromosome 9. CPP can be distinguished from ependymoma on the basis of CGH abnormalities. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. 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

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available