4.7 Article

The mechanisms underlying MMR deficiency in immunodeficiency-related non-Hodgkin lymphomas are different from those in other sporadic microsatellite instable neoplasms

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 125, 期 10, 页码 2360-2366

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.24681

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The spectrum of tumors showing microisatellite instability (MSI) has recently been enlarged to sporadic neoplasms whose incidence is favored In the context (if chronic immunosuppression. We investigated (lie biological, therapeutic and clinical features associated with MSI in immunodeficiency- related non-Ilodgkin lymphomas (ID-RL). MSI screening was performed in 275 ID-RL MSI ID-RL, were further analyzed for MMR gene expression and for BRAF/KRAS mutations since these genes are frequently altered fit MSI cancers. We also assessed the expression of O-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase(MGMT), an enzyme whose inactivation has been reported in lymphomas and may, help in the selection of MMR deficient clones. Unlike other sporadic MSI neoplasms, MSI ID-RL (N = 17) presented with heterogeneous MMR defects and no MLH1 promoter methylation. About one third of these tumors presented with normal expression or MLII1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2. They accumulated BRAF activating mutations (33%). Unlike other ID-IRL, MSI ID-RL. were primarily EBV-negative NHL of T-cell origin, and arose after long-term immunosuppression in patients who received azathioprine as part of their immunosuppressive regimen (p = 0.05) and/or who exhibited methylation-induced loss of expression of MGMT in tumor cells (P = 0.02). Overall, these results highlight that, in the context of deficient immune status, some MSI neoplasms arise through alternative mechanism when compared to other sporadic MSI neoplasms. They give (lie exact way how to make the diagnosis of MSI in these tumors and may help to define biological and clinical risk factors associated with their emergence in such a clinical context. 2009 UICC

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