4.7 Article

SMAD4 Gene Mutations Are Associated with Poor Prognosis in Pancreatic Cancer

Journal

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
Volume 15, Issue 14, Pages 4674-4679

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0227

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH [CA62924, CA121113]
  2. Sol Goldman Pancreatic Cancer Research Center
  3. Lustgarten Foundation for Pancreatic Cancer Research
  4. Monastra Foundation
  5. Michael Rolfe Pancreatic Cancer Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Recently, the majority of protein coding genes were sequenced in a collection of pancreatic cancers, providing an unprecedented opportunity to identify genetic markers of prognosis for patients with adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Experimental Design: We previously sequenced more than 750 million base pairs of DNA from 23,219 transcripts in a series of 24 adenocarcinomas of the pancreas. In addition, 39 genes that were mutated in more than one of these 24 cancers were sequenced in a separate panel of 90 well-characterized adenocarcinomas of the pancreas. Of these 114 patients, 89 underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy, and the somatic mutations in these cancers were correlated with patient outcome. Results: When adjusted for age, lymph node status, margin status, and tumor size, SMAD4 gene inactivation was significantly associated with shorter overall survival (hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-3.05; P = 0.006). Patients with SMAD4 gene inactivation survived a median of 11.5 months, compared with 14.2 months for patients without SMAD4 inactivation. By contrast, mutations in CDKN2A or TP53 or the presence of multiple (2 4) mutations or homozygous deletions among the 39 most frequently mutated genes were not associated with survival. Conclusions: SMAD4 gene inactivation is associated with poorer prognosis in patients with surgically resected adenocarcinoma of the pancreas.

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