4.2 Article

Status and Significance of CpG Island Methylator Phenotype in Endometrial Cancer

Journal

GYNECOLOGIC AND OBSTETRIC INVESTIGATION
Volume 72, Issue 3, Pages 183-191

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000324496

Keywords

Methylator phenotype; CpG island; Endometrial cancer; Promoter; Gene

Funding

  1. Medical Scientific Research Program of Guangdong Province, PR China [A2007413, A2009430]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Endometrial cancer is a common gynecologic malignant disease, but patients with advanced disease have a poor prognosis. The CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) involves hypermethylation targeted toward the promoters of multiple genes. Objective: To investigate the role of epigenetic aberration of tumor-related genes in endometrial cancer. Methods: The promoter methylation status of 5 genes was examined in 35 endometrial cancer tissues, 15 matched adjacent normal endometrial tissues (NET) from the same cancer patients, and 22 benign endometria from unaffected patients by methylation-specific PCR. CIMP positivity (CIMP+) was defined as concordant methylation of 6 3 genes. Results: The methylation frequency of promoters for the 5 genes in the cancer tissues ranged from 37% for P16 to 57% for P14. Cancer and benign endometria, but not cancer and adjacent NET, significantly differed in methylation of P14, P16, ER, COX-2 and RASSF1A (p < 0.05). CIMP+ was frequent in cancer and adjacent NET (46 and 47%, respectively; p 1 0.05), but absent in benign endometria. Moreover, CIMP+ was significantly correlated with methylation of P16 and COX-2 (r = 0.673 and 0.662, respectively; p < 0.001). Conclusion: CIMP+ is an important and frequent epigenetic event in endometrial cancer or adjacent NET, and may be a biomarker for predicting early carcinogenesis. COX-2 is a good representative gene of CIMP+ in this cancer. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available