4.6 Article

Comparison of genetic alterations in neuroendocrine tumors: frequent loss of chromosome 18 in ileal carcinoid tumors

期刊

MODERN PATHOLOGY
卷 18, 期 8, 页码 1079-1087

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.3800389

关键词

allelic loss; BRAF mutations; carcinoid tumor; pancreatic endocrine tumor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carcinoid tumors and pancreatic endocrine tumors are uncommon neuroendocrine neoplasms, and their genetic alterations are not well characterized. These tumors have site-specific differences in neuroendocrine characteristics, clinical course and genetic alterations. We compared clinicopathological features and loss of heterozygosity of chromosomes 11q, 16q and 18, and BRAF gene mutations in 47 patients with neuroendocrine tumors including 16 with pancreatic endocrine tumors, 15 with nonileal carcinoid tumors and 16 with ileal carcinoid tumors. Patients with carcinoid tumors had more frequent history of alcohol consumption compared to patients with pancreatic endocrine tumors ( P = 0.02), and patients with ileal carcinoid tumors more frequently had liver metastasis compared to patients with nonileal carcinoid tumors and pancreatic endocrine tumors ( P = 0.02). Allelic loss of chromosome 11q was present in 21% of tumors, chromosome 16q in 13%, and chromosome 18 in 30%. These alterations differed with the anatomical subsite of tumor: allelic loss of chromosome 18 was present in 69% of ileal carcinoid tumors, 13% of nonileal carcinoid tumors and 6% of pancreatic endocrine tumors ( P = 0.001). In contrast to pancreatic endocrine tumors and nonileal carcinoid tumors, all 11 ileal tumors with loss of chromosome 18 had complete loss of both chromosomal arms. No BRAF mutations were identified. Complete allelic loss of chromosome 18 was associated with smaller tumor size ( P = 0.02). Our study indicates that genetic alterations vary by tumor subsite and clinicopathologic features, and ileal carcinoid tumors have distinctive clinicopathologic and genetic profiles.

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

4.6
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