4.6 Article

Genes Located on 18q23 Are Epigenetic Markers and Have Prognostic Significance for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer

期刊

CANCERS
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers11030401

关键词

head and neck cancer; LOH; 18q23; CpG island; promoter methylation; quantitative methylation-specific PCR; disease-free survival

类别

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan [16K11228, 16K20239, 17K11380, 17K16903, 17K16904]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K20239, 17K16904, 17K16903, 16K11228, 17K11380] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) on chromosome 18q23 is associated with significantly decreased survival in head and neck cancer. In agreement with such tumor suppressive roles, the loss of function of genes located in this region can be achieved through LOH and promotor hypermethylation. In this study, the methylation status of promoters of 18q23 genes in 243 head and neck cancer patients was assessed by quantitative methylation-specific PCR. Promoter methylation was then compared to various clinical characteristics and patient survival. GALR1 and SALL3 promoter methylation correlated with reduced disease-free survival (log-rank test, p = 0.018 and p = 0.013, respectively). Furthermore, based on multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis, these methylation events were associated with poor disease-free survival, with hazard ratios of 1.600 (95% confidence interval: CI, 1.027-2.493; p = 0.038) and 1.911 (95% CI, 1.155-3.162; p = 0.012), respectively. By comparison, GALR1 and SALL3 methylation were not prognostic for overall survival in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) cohort. Our findings suggest that the methylation status of 18q23 genes could serve as important biomarkers for the prediction of clinical outcomes in well-annotated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma cohorts. GALR1 and SALL3 methylation could thus help to facilitate risk stratification for individualized treatment.

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