4.7 Article

Heterogeneous distribution of BRAF/NRAS mutations among Italian patients with advanced melanoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1479-5876-11-202

关键词

Malignant melanoma; BRAF gene; NRAS gene; Mutation analysis; Cancer genetic heterogeneity

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Health Progetto Ricerca Finalizzata
  2. Sardinia Regional Government (Regione Autonoma della Sardegna)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Prevalence and distribution of pathogenetic mutations in BRAF and NRAS genes were evaluated in multiple melanoma lesions from patients with different geographical origin within the same Italian population. Methods: Genomic DNA from a total of 749 tumor samples (451 primary tumors and 298 metastases) in 513 consecutively-collected patients with advanced melanoma (AJCC stages III and IV) was screened for mutations in exon 15 of BRAF gene and, at lower extension (354/513; 69%), in the entire coding DNA of NRAS gene by automated direct sequencing. Among tissues, 236 paired samples of primary melanomas and synchronous or asynchronous metastases were included into the screening. Results: Overall, mutations were detected in 49% primary melanomas and 51% metastases, for BRAF gene, and 15% primary tumors and 16% secondaries, for NRAS gene. A heterogeneous distribution of mutations in both genes was observed among the 451 primary melanomas according to patients' geographical origin: 61% vs. 42% (p = 0.0372) BRAF-mutated patients and 2% vs. 21% (p < 0.0001) NRAS-mutated cases were observed in Sardinian and non-Sardinian populations, respectively. Consistency in BRAF/NRAS mutations among paired samples was high for lymph node (91%) and visceral metastases (92.5%), but significantly lower for brain (79%; p = 0.0227) and skin (71%; p = 0.0009) metastases. Conclusions: Our findings about the two main alterations occurring in the different tumor tissues from patients with advanced melanoma may be helpful in improving the management of such a disease.

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