4.5 Article

Prognostic impact ofCRTC1/3-MAML2fusions in salivary gland mucoepidermoid carcinoma: A multiinstitutional retrospective study

期刊

CANCER SCIENCE
卷 111, 期 11, 页码 4195-4204

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cas.14632

关键词

CRTC1; 3-MAML2; mucoepidermoid carcinoma; NCCN Guidelines; salivary gland; survival analysis

类别

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) of Japan [15K08351, 17K08746]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17K08746, 15K08351] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) is rare, but the most common primary malignancy of the salivary gland and not infrequent in young individuals.CRTC1/3-MAML2fusions are frequently detected in MEC and are useful as a diagnostic biomarker. However, there has been debate as to whether the fusions have prognostic significance. In this study, we retrospectively collected 153 salivary gland MEC cases from 11 tertiary hospitals in Japan. As inclusion criteria, the MEC patients in this study had curative surgery as the initial treatment, received no preoperative treatment, and had no distant metastasis at the time of the initial surgery. The MEC diagnosis was validated by a central pathology review by five expert salivary gland pathologists. TheCRTC1/3-MAML2fusions were detected using FISH and RT-PCR. In 153 MEC cases, 90 (58.8%) were positive forCRTC1/3-MAML2fusions. During the follow-up period, 28 (18.3%) patients showed tumor recurrence and 12 (7.8%) patients died. The presence of the fusions was associated with favorable tumor features. Of note, none of the fusion-positive patients died during the follow-up period. Statistical analysis showed that the presence of the fusions was a prognostic indicator of a better overall survival in the total and advanced-stage MEC cohorts, but not in the early-stage MEC cohort. In conclusion,CRTC1/3-MAML2fusions are an excellent biomarker for favorable overall survival of patients with salivary gland MEC.

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

4.5
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