4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Coexistent intraurothelial carcinoma and muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: clonality and somatic down-regulation of DNA mismatch repair

期刊

HUMAN PATHOLOGY
卷 40, 期 7, 页码 988-997

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2008.12.009

关键词

Bladder; Carcinoma in situ; Low-grade dysplasia; Urothelial carcinoma; Heterogeneity; Tumor suppressor genes; DNA mismatch repair

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Muscle-invasive urothelial carcinomas are heterogeneous neoplasms for which the clonal relationship with low-grade urothelial dysplasia and carcinomas in situ remains unknown, and both monoclonal and field change models have been proposed. Low-grade dysplasia (18) and carcinoma in situ (12) associated with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma were microdissected and topographically analyzed (intraepithelial and invasive superficial and deep to muscularis mucosa) for methylation pattern of androgen receptor alleles, TP53, RB1, WT1, and NF1 microsatellite analysis to assess clonal identity; MLH1 and MSH2 sequencing/immunostaining. Appropriate controls were run. Carcinoma in situ (100%) and invasive urothelial carcinoma (100%) revealed monoclonal patterns, whereas low-grade dysplasia was preferentially polyclonal (80%). Carcinoma in situ showed aneuploid DNA content and more abnormal microsatellites than the corresponding invasive compartments, opposite to low-grade dysplasia. Absent MLH1 protein expression with no gene mutations were identified in carcinoma in situ and nodular-trabecular urothelial carcinoma with high microsatellite abnormalities. Somatic mismatch repair protein down-regulation and the accumulation of tumor suppressor gene microsatellite abnormalities contribute to a molecular evolution for monoclonal carcinoma in situ divergent from coexistent muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma. Low-grade dysplasia is however unlikely connected with this molecular progression. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据