4.6 Article

Telomere length in different histologic types of ovarian carcinoma with emphasis on clear cell carcinoma

期刊

MODERN PATHOLOGY
卷 24, 期 8, 页码 1139-1145

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2011.67

关键词

clear cell carcinoma; FISH; telomere; ovarian cancer

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P30 CA006973] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ovarian carcinoma is composed of a heterogeneous group of tumors with distinct clinico-pathological and molecular features. Alteration of telomerase activity has been reported in ovarian tumors but the pattern of telomere length in their specific histological subtypes has not been reported. In this study, we performed quantitative telomere fluorescence in situ hybridization on a total of 219 ovarian carcinomas including 106 high-grade serous carcinomas, 26 low-grade serous carcinomas, 56 clear cell carcinomas and 31 low-grade endometrioid carcinomas. The mean relative telomere length of carcinoma to stromal cells was calculated as a telomere index. This index was significantly higher in clear cell carcinoma compared with the other histologic types (P = 0.007). Overall there was no association between the telomere index and mortality, but when stratified by histologic types, the hazard ratio for death among women with clear cell carcinoma with a telomere index > 1 was significantly increased at 4.93 (95% CI 1.64-14.86, P = 0.005) when compared with those with a telomere index <= 1. In conclusion, our results provide new evidence that telomere length significantly differs by histologic type in ovarian carcinoma. Specifically, clear cell carcinomas have longer mean relative telomere lengths compared with the other histologic types and longer telomeres in clear cell carcinoma are associated with increased mortality suggesting that aberrations in telomere length may have an important role in the development and progression of this neoplasm. Modern Pathology (2011) 24, 1139-1145; doi:10.1038/modpathol.2011.67; published online 15 April 2011

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

4.6
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