4.7 Article

A Mutational Comparison of Adult and Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Colon Cancer

期刊

CANCER
卷 124, 期 5, 页码 1070-1082

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.31136

关键词

adolescent and young adult (AYA); colon cancer; exome sequencing; mutation; RNA sequencing (RNASeq)

类别

资金

  1. internal National Cancer Institute through the Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: It is possible that the relative lack of progress in treatment outcomes among adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with cancer is caused by a difference in disease biology compared with the corresponding diseases in younger and older individuals. There is evidence that colon cancer is more aggressive and has a poorer prognosis in AYA patients than in older adult patients. METHODS: To further understand the molecular basis for this difference, whole-exome sequencing was conducted on a cohort of 30 adult, 30 AYA, and 2 pediatric colon cancers. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference in mutational frequency was observed between AYA and adult samples in 43 genes, including ROBO1, MYC binding protein 2 (MYCBP2), breast cancer 2 (early onset) (BRCA2), MAP3K3, MCPH1, RASGRP3, PTCH1, RAD9B, CTNND1, ATM, NF1; KIT, PTEN, and FBXW7. Many of these mutations were nonsynonymous, missense, stop-gain, or frameshift mutations that were damaging. Next, RNA sequencing was performed on a subset of the samples to confirm the mutations identified by exome sequencing. This confirmation study verified the presence of a significantly greater frequency of damaging mutations in AYA compared with adult colon cancers for 5 of the 43 genes (MYCBP2, BRCA2, PHLPP1, TOPORS, and ATR). CONCLUSIONS: The current results provide the rationale for a more comprehensive study with a larger sample set and experimental validation of the functional impact of the identified variants along with their contribution to the biologic and clinical characteristics of AYA colon cancer. (C) 2017 American Cancer Society.

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

4.7
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