4.1 Review

Molecular classification of cholangiocarcinoma

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 57-62

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000611

关键词

cholangiocarcinoma; genomics; molecular classification

资金

  1. Inserm
  2. Universite de Rennes 1
  3. INCa
  4. ITMO Cancer AVIESAN (Alliance Nationale pour les Sciences de la Vie et de la Sante) dans le cadre du Plan cancer (Noncoding RNA in cancerology: fundamental to translational) [C18007NS]
  5. ITMO Cancer AVIESAN
  6. COST Association [CA18122]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) are heterogeneous tumors that arise from the malignant transformation of cholangiocytes along the biliary tree. CCA heterogeneity occurs at multiple levels and results in resistance to therapy and poor prognosis. Here, we review the molecular classification of CCA by focusing on the latest progresses based on genetic, epigenetic, transcriptomic and proteomic profiles. In addition, we introduce the emerging field of radiogenomics. Recent findings Genome-wide integrative omics approaches have been widely reported by using large cohorts of CCA patients. Morphomolecular correlations have been established, including enrichment of FGFR2 gene fusions and IDH1/2 mutations in iCCA. A specific IDH mutant iCCA subtype displays high mitochondrial and low chromatin modifier expression linked to ARID1A promoter hypermethylation. Examples of translation of these classifications for the management of CCA have also been reported, with prediction of drug efficacy based on genetic alterations. Although there is currently no international consensus on CCA morphomolecular classification, the recent initiatives developed under the umbrella of The European Network for the Study of Cholangiocarcinoma (ENSCCA) should favor new collaborative research. Identifying distinct molecular subgroups and developing appropriate targeted therapies will improve the clinical outcome of patients with CCA.

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

4.1
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