4.5 Article

Molecular subclass of uterine fibroids predicts tumor shrinkage in response to ulipristal acetate

期刊

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
卷 32, 期 7, 页码 1063-1071

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddac217

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that the treatment response of uterine fibroids is influenced by molecular subclasses, with MED12 mutant fibroids having a higher chance of shrinking after ulipristal acetate treatment compared to HMGA2 driven fibroids. Gene expression and DNA methylation analyses also revealed subclass specific differences in progesterone receptor signaling. These findings highlight the importance of considering genetic subclasses in evaluating uterine fibroid therapies.
Precision medicine carries great potential for management of all tumor types. The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate if the two most common genetically distinct uterine fibroid subclasses, driven by aberrations in MED12 and HMGA2 genes, respectively, influence response to treatment with the progesterone receptor modulator ulipristal acetate. Changes in diameter and mutation status were derived for 101 uterine fibroids surgically removed after ulipristal acetate treatment. A significant difference in treatment response between the two major subclasses was detected. MED12 mutant fibroids had 4.4 times higher odds of shrinking in response to ulipristal acetate treatment as compared to HMGA2 driven fibroids (95% confidence interval 1.37-13.9; P = 0.013), and in a multivariate analysis molecular subclassification was an independent predictive factor. Compatible with this finding, gene expression and DNA methylation analyses revealed subclass specific differences in progesterone receptor signaling. The work provides a proof-of-principle that uterine fibroid treatment response is influenced by molecular subclass and that the genetic subclasses should be taken into account when evaluating current and future uterine fibroid therapies.

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