4.4 Article

Longitudinal study of TP53 mutations in eight patients with potentially malignant oral mucosal disorders

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL PATHOLOGY & MEDICINE
卷 38, 期 9, 页码 716-721

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2009.00767.x

关键词

leukoplakia; lichen planus; OSCC; potentially malignant lesions; TP53 mutations

资金

  1. Icelandic Cancer Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: In a previous cross-sectional study, the authors found a higher rate of TP53 mutation in oral lichen planus (OLP) than in hyperkeratosis. By analysing for TP53 mutations in serial samples from patients on long-term follow-up of their oral lesions, it was hoped to determine if these mutations were related to disease progression. Methods: Eight patients presenting with lesions diagnosed clinically as oral leukoplakia or lichen planus were followed from 2 to 12 years. Two to five samples of archival biopsy tissue were analysed from each patient by constant denaturant gradient gel electrophoresis for hotspots A, B, C, D and exon 6. Results: Four patients were diagnosed clinically as OLP: two of these were confirmed histopathologically, one was diagnosed as non-specific hyperkeratosis and one as cancer. Four patients had leukoplakia only, with a histopathological diagnosis of hyperkeratosis. Seven patients had TP53 mutations, three of them on repeated occasions. All five patients who developed squamous-cell carcinoma had mutations. Two of them had mutated pre-malignant lesions, and one of these previously had a non-mutated cancer. Three patients had two different primary cancers, only one of them mutated. One patient developed a mutated cancer 5 years after the last mutation-free biopsy. Of the cancer-free patients, a lesion regarded clinically as cancer-suspicious in one case was mutated, in another patient two OLP lesions were mutated, the third had five biopsies taken during 8 years, all non-mutated. Conclusions: TP53 mutations may occur early or late in the development of oral squamous-cell carcinoma.

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