4.7 Article

Colorectal cancer genomics: evidence for multiple genotypes which influence survival

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 85, Issue 10, Pages 1492-1498

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1054/bjoc.2001.2095

Keywords

CGH; colo-rectal tumours; cell lines; survival; cancer genomics

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer death and the mechanism for variable outcome in this disease is not yet fully understood. It is hypothesized that differences in the genetic make-up of tumours may be partially responsible for the differences observed in survival among same staged individuals for this disease. In this study the tumour genomes of 29 consecutive patients undergoing surgery for Dukes'C CRC were assessed by comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). In addition, the CGH profiles from the tumours were compared with those from eight colorectal cell lines. Great variation in genetic grade (all detectable aberrations i.e., loss + gain) was observed in 29 Dukes' C colorectal tumours by CGH (median four aberrations per tumour, range 0-20). Gain was found in 76% and loss in 41% of tumours. The most frequently observed regions of gain were 13q (27.6%), 20q (27.6%), 7p (24.1%), 8q (24.1%), and Iq (20.7%) and loss were 18q (31%), 4q (20.7%), 17p (20.7%), 18p (20.7%), and 15q (20.1%). None of these specific genomic aberrations were associated with patient survival. However, patients with more than two aberrations had a better survival than patients with fewer regions of loss and gain (P = 0.02). CRC cell lines had similar regions of loss or gain as the tumours. However. the frequency of genomic aberrations was much greater in the CRC cell lines. Although genomic change in CRC is relevant to the survival of patients with Dukes'C CRC, careful analysis is required to identify cell lines which are representative models of CRC genomics. (C) 2001 Cancer Research Campaign.

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