4.7 Article

Cholangiocarcinoma Heterogeneity Revealed by Multigene Mutational Profiling: Clinical and Prognostic Relevance in Surgically Resected Patients

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 1699-1707

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-5046-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cholangiocarcinoma can be classified in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PCC). Moreover, PCC includes two different forms: extrahepatic (EH) PCC, which arises from the perihilar EH large ducts, and intrahepatic (IH) PCC, in which a significant liver mass invades the perihilar bile ducts. In this study, we investigated the molecular profile and molecular prognostic factors in EH-PCC, IH-PCC, and ICC submitted to curative surgery. Ninety-one patients with cholangiocarcinoma (38 EH-PCC, 18 IH-PCC, and 35 ICC), who underwent curative surgery in a single tertiary hepatobiliary surgery referral center were assessed for mutational status in 56 cancer-related genes. The most frequently mutated genes in EH-PCC were KRAS (47.4 %), TP53 (23.7 %) and ARID1A (15.8 %); in IH-PCC were KRAS (22.2 %), PBRM1 (16.7 %), and PIK3CA (16.7 %); and in ICC were IDH1 (17.1 %), NRAS (17.1 %), and BAP1 (14.3 %). The presence of mutations in ALK, IDH1, and TP53 genes was significantly associated with poor prognosis in patients with EH-PCC (p < 0.001, p = 0.043, and p = 0.019, respectively). Mutation of the TP53 gene was significantly associated with poor prognosis in patients with IH-PCC (p = 0.049). The presence of mutations in ARID1A, PIK3C2G, STK11, TGFBR2, and TP53 genes was significantly associated with poor prognosis in patients with ICC (p = 0.012, p = 0.030, p = 0.030, p = 0.011, and p = 0.011, respectively). Mutational gene profiling identified different gene mutations in EH-PCC, IH-PCC, and ICC. Moreover, our study reported specific prognostic genes that can identify patients with poor prognosis after curative surgery who may benefit from traditional or target adjuvant treatments.

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

4.7
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