4.7 Article

The Presence of Genetic Mutations at Key Loci Predicts Progression to Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in Barrett's Esophagus

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 110, 期 6, 页码 828-834

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2015.152

关键词

-

资金

  1. Interpace Diagnostics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: Risk stratification in Barrett's esophagus (BE) is challenging. We evaluated the ability of a panel of genetic markers to predict progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). METHODS: In this case-control study, we assessed a measure of genetic instability, the mutational load (ML), in predicting progression to HGD or EAC. Cases had nondysplastic BE or low-grade dysplasia (LGD) at baseline and developed HGD/EAC >= 1 year later. Controls were matched 2: 1, had nondysplastic BE or LGD, and no progression at follow-up. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue was microdissected for the epithelium. Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and microsatellite instability (MSI) were assessed. ML was calculated from derangements in 10 genomic loci. High-clonality LOH mutations were assigned a value of 1, low-clonality mutations were assigned a value of 0.5, and MSI 0.75 at the first loci, and 0.5 for additional loci. These values were summed to the ML. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were created. RESULTS: There were 69 patients (46 controls and 23 cases). Groups were similar in age, follow-up time, baseline histology, and the number of microdissected targets. Mean ML in pre-progression biopsies was higher in cases (2.21) than in controls (0.42; P < 0.0001). Sensitivity was 100% at ML >= 0.5 and specificity was 96% at ML >= 1.5. Accuracy was highest at 89.9% for ML >= 1. ROC curves for ML >= 1 demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.95. CONCLUSIONS: ML in pre-progression BE tissue predicts progression to HGD or EAC. Although further validation is necessary, ML may have utility as a biomarker in endoscopic surveillance of BE.

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