4.8 Article

Whole Genome Comparison of Allelic Imbalance between Noninvasive and Invasive Small-Sized Lung Adenocarcinomas

Journal

CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 69, Issue 4, Pages 1615-1623

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-3218

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare
  2. National Institute of Biomedical Innovation (NiBio)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Seventy-two small-sized (<= 2 cm in diameter) lung adenocarcinomas consisting of 15 noninvasive and 57 invasive tumors were subjected to whole genome allelic imbalance (AI) scanning and mutational analysis of the EGFR, KRAS, and TP53 genes to elucidate genetic pathways of early-stage lung adenocarcinomas. The chromosome 13q13 region showed the most frequent AI (58%) and was affected at similar frequencies between noninvasive and invasive tumors (53% and 60%, respectively), as EGFR and KRAS mutations were. The number of AI regions as well as the frequency of TP53 mutations in invasive tumors was significantly higher than those in noninvasive ones [9.8 +/- 5.6 versus 4.8 +/- 2.8 (P = 0.00002) and 61% versus 13% (P = 0.001), respectively]. In particular, AIs at the chromosome 11p-11p12, 17p12-p13, and 18p11 regions in invasive tumors were significantly more frequent than those in noninvasive ones (P < 0.01). The results indicated that noninvasive tumors were developed by EGFR, KRAS, and 13q alterations and progressed to invasive ones by subsequent alterations of several tumor suppressor genes, including those on 11p11-p12, 17p12-p13, and 18p11 and TP53. AI at 8p21 was significantly more frequent in advanced stages (>IA) and associated with worse prognoses (P = 0.04) and, thus, would be involved in invasion and/or metastasis of adenocarcinoma cells and useful for the prediction of prognosis of patients with small-sized lung adenocarcinoma. [Cancer Res 2009;69(4):1615-23]

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available