3.9 Article Proceedings Paper

A clinico-genomic analysis of soft tissue sarcoma patients reveals CDKN2A deletion as a biomarker for poor prognosis

期刊

CLINICAL SARCOMA RESEARCH
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13569-019-0122-5

关键词

Soft tissue sarcoma; Genomics; Prognostic markers; CDKN2A

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Sarcomas are a rare, heterogeneous group of tumors with variable tendencies for aggressive behavior. Molecular markers for prognosis are needed to risk stratify patients and identify those who might benefit from more intensive therapeutic strategies. Patients and methods We analyzed somatic tumor genomic profiles and clinical outcomes of 152 soft tissue (STS) and bone sarcoma (BS) patients sequenced at Stanford Cancer Institute as well as 206 STS patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas. Genomic profiles of 7733 STS from the Foundation Medicine database were used to assess the frequency of CDKN2A alterations in histological subtypes of sarcoma. Results Compared to all other tumor types, sarcomas were found to carry the highest relative percentage of gene amplifications/deletions/fusions and the lowest average mutation count. The most commonly altered genes in STS were TP53 (47%), CDKN2A (22%), RB1 (22%), NF1 (11%), and ATRX (11%). When all genomic alterations were tested for prognostic significance in the specific Stanford cohort of localized STS, only CDKN2A alterations correlated significantly with prognosis, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.83 for overall survival (p = 0.017). These findings were validated in the TCGA dataset where CDKN2A altered patients had significantly worse overall survival with a HR of 2.7 (p = 0.002). Analysis of 7733 STS patients from Foundation One showed high prevalence of CDKN2A alterations in malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, myxofibrosarcomas, and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcomas. Conclusion Our clinico-genomic profiling of STS shows that CDKN2A deletion was the most prevalent DNA copy number aberration and was associated with poor prognosis.

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

3.9
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