4.8 Article

The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer

期刊

NATURE MEDICINE
卷 21, 期 11, 页码 1350-1356

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nm.3967

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [U54CA149237]
  2. La Caixa International Program for Cancer Research Education
  3. Dutch Cancer Society [UVA2011-4969, UVA2014-7245, UVA2012-573, UVA2013-6331, UVA2015-7587]
  4. Worldwide Cancer Research [14-1164]
  5. Maag Lever Darm Stichting (MLDS) [MLDS-CDG 14-03]
  6. European Research Council [ERG-StG 638193]
  7. MLDS [FP012]
  8. US National Institutes of Health [R01CA172670, R01CA184843, R01 CA187238, P30CA016672]
  9. National Health Service
  10. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven [GOA/12/2106]
  11. EU
  12. Research Foundation Flanders
  13. Belgian National Cancer Plan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a frequently lethal disease with heterogeneous outcomes and drug responses. To resolve inconsistencies among the reported gene expression-based CRC classifications and facilitate clinical translation, we formed an international consortium dedicated to large-scale data sharing and analytics across expert groups. We show marked interconnectivity between six independent classification systems coalescing into four consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) with distinguishing features: CMS1 (microsatellite instability immune, 14%), hypermutated, microsatellite unstable and strong immune activation; CMS2 (canonical, 37%), epithelial, marked WNT and MYC signaling activation; CMS3 (metabolic, 13%), epithelial and evident metabolic dysregulation; and CMS4 (mesenchymal, 23%), prominent transforming growth factor-beta activation, stromal invasion and angiogenesis. Samples with mixed features (13%) possibly represent a transition phenotype or intratumoral heterogeneity. We consider the CMS groups the most robust classification system currently available for CRC-with clear biological interpretability-and the basis for future clinical stratification and subtype-based targeted interventions.

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

4.8
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