4.4 Article

Allelic alterations in well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (carcinoid tumors) identified by genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism analysis and comparison with pancreatic endocrine tumors

Journal

GENES CHROMOSOMES & CANCER
Volume 47, Issue 1, Pages 84-92

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gcc.20510

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (WDNT, carcinoid tumors) are uncommon indolent neoplasms. The genetic alterations of these tumors are not well characterized. We used genome-wide high-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analysis to detect copy number alterations in 29 WDNTs, including seven lung, seven nonileal gastrointestinal, and 15 ileal tumors, and compared with allelic imbalances in 15 pancreatic endocrine tumors (PETs). Most frequent allelic imbalances in WDNTs were losses of chromosome 18 in 10 tumors (34%), chromosome 21 or 21q in six (21%), chromosome 13 or 13q in five (17%) and chromosome 16 or 16q in four (14%) tumors, and amplification of chromosome 20 or 20p in seven (24%) tumors. We also found one tumor with loss of heterozygosity of chromosomes 10 and IS without copy number loss. These allelic imbalances were associated with primary site of tumor: loss of chromosome 18 was present exclusively in ileal WDNTs (P = 0.001), and loss of chromosome 21 or 21q was more frequent in nonileal gastrointestinal WDNTs (P = 0.02). The tumors with loss of chromosome 21 were larger compared to tumors without loss (P = 0.03). Chromosomal aberrations were less common in WDNTs from lung and gastrointestinal tract compared to PETs (P = 0.001). Our study shows that genome-wide allelotyping using SNP array is a powerful new tool for the analysis of allelic imbalances in WDNTs, and some of these alterations are tumor site-dependent and are different than in PETs. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available