4.2 Article

CDKN2A deletion in pediatric versus adult glioblastomas and predictive value of p16 immunohistochemistry

期刊

NEUROPATHOLOGY
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 405-412

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/neup.12014

关键词

adult GBM; CDKN2A; glioma; p16; pediatric GBM

资金

  1. Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)
  2. Neuro Sciences Centre
  3. Department of Pathology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cell cycle regulator genes are major target of mutation in many human malignancies including glioblastomas (GBMs). CDKN2A is one such tumor suppressor gene which encodes p16INK4a protein and serves as an inhibitor of cell cycle progression. Very few studies are available regarding the association of CDKN2A deletion with p16 protein expression in GBMs. There is limited data on the frequency of CDKN2A deletion in different age groups. The aim of the present study was to analyze the frequency of CDKN2A gene deletions in GBM and correlate CDKN2A deletional status with (i) age of the patient (ii) p16 protein expression and (iii) other genetic alterations, namely EGFR amplification and TP53 mutation. A combined retrospective and prospective study was conducted. Sixty seven cases were included. The patients were grouped into pediatric (218 years), young adults (19-40 years) and older adults (>40 years). CDKN2A and EGFR status were assessed by Fluorescence in situ Hybridization. TP53 mutation was analyzed by PCR based method. p16 expression was assessed using immunohistochemistry. CDKN2A deletion was noted in 40.3% cases of GBM with majority being homozygous deletion (74%). It was commoner in primary GBMs (65.8%) and cases with EGFR amplification (50%). A variable frequency of CDKN2A was observed in older adults (42.3%), young adults (44%), and pediatric patients (31.25%). The difference however was not statistically significant. There was statistically significant association between CDKN2A deletion and p16 immunonegativity with a high negative predictive value of immunohistochemistry.

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

4.2
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