4.6 Article

Comparative genomics of high grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the cervix

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234505

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [P50CA83639]
  2. NIH T32 training grant [CA101642]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to improve treatment selection for high grade neuroendocrine carcinomas of the cervix (NECC), we performed a comparative genomic analysis between this rare tumor type and other cervical cancer types, as well as extra-cervical neuroendocrine small cell carcinomas of the lung and bladder. We performed whole exome sequencing on fresh-frozen tissue from 15 NECCs and matched normal tissue. We then identified mutations and copy number variants using standard analysis pipelines. Published mutation tables from cervical cancers and extra-cervical small cell carcinomas were used for comparative analysis. Descriptive statistical methods were used and a two-sided threshold of P < .05 was used for significance. In the NECC cohort, we detected a median of 1.7 somatic mutations per megabase (range 1.0-20.9).PIK3CAp.E545K mutations were the most frequency observed oncogenic mutation (4/15 tumors, 27%). Activating MAPK pathway mutations inKRAS(p.G12D) andGNAS(p.R201C) co-occurred in two tumors (13%). In total we identified PI3-kinase or MAPK pathway activating mutations in 67% of NECC. When compared to NECC, lung and bladder small cell carcinomas exhibited a statistically significant higher rate of coding mutations (P < .001 for lung; P = .001 for bladder). Mutation ofTP53was uncommon in NECC (13%) and was more frequent in both lung (103 of 110 tumors [94%], P < .001) and bladder (18 of 19 tumors [95%], P < .001) small cell carcinoma. These comparative genomics data suggest that NECC may be genetically more similar to common cervical cancer subtypes than to extra-cervical small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas of the lung and bladder. These results may have implications for the selection of cytotoxic and targeted therapy regimens for this rare 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

4.6
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