4.7 Article

Chromosomal changes characterize head and neck cancer with poor prognosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR MEDICINE-JMM
卷 86, 期 12, 页码 1353-1365

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00109-008-0397-0

关键词

HNSCC; Chromosomal imbalances; Array-CGH; FA; BRCA pathway; Prognostic marker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is well established that genetic alterations may be associated to prognosis in tumor patients. This study investigates chromosomal changes that predict the clinical outcome of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and correlate to characteristic clinicopathological parameters. We applied comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) to tissue samples from 117 HNSCC patients scheduled for radiotherapy. Genomic aberrations occurring in more than five patients were studied for impact on locoregional progression (LRP)-free survival. p values were adjusted by the Hochberg-Benjamini procedure and significant aberrations and clinical variables subjected to a stepwise backwards Cox proportional model. Significant alterations were further analyzed by array-CGH and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). In multivariate survival analysis gains on 1q and 16q predict reduced LRP-free survival independently from known prognostic factors. Cluster analysis separated the HNSCC cases into two groups (cluster 1 and 2) that are characterized by significant differences for imbalances in 13 chromosomal regions. Moreover, it became apparent that cluster 1 correlates to nonanemic patients, while cluster 2 represents predominantly anemic cases. Array-CGH pinpoints 16q24.3 to be the region of interest on chromosome 16 which was further verified by FISH analysis where an increased copy number of FANCA, a member of the Fanconi anemia/breast cancer pathway, could be identified. This study demonstrates that chromosomal gains on 1q and 16q as well as chromosomal loss on 18q represent prognostic markers in HNSCC and that these alterations may explain to some extent the dismal course of a subgroup of patients.

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