4.6 Article

Molecular cytogenetics of ovarian granulosa cell tumors by comparative genomic hybridization

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 97, 期 1, 页码 68-73

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2004.12.014

关键词

granulosa cell tumor; ovary; prognosis; chromosomal imbalance; comparative genomic hybridization; CGH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Patients with stage I granulosa cell tumors (GCTs) may occasionally develop metastasis, which is hard to predict using pathologic criteria. It is interesting to elucidate whether certain chromosomal imbalances (Cls), detected by comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), could be useful prognostic markers. Methods. CGH was used to identify CI(s) in 37 adult-type GCTs from 36 women. Nonrandom Cls were compared with clinical and pathological features to evaluate their significance as a prognostic marker. Results. Twenty-two (61%) of the 36 primary tumors had Cls. One woman's tumor showed identical Cls to another tumor that Occurred in contralateral ovary 2 years later, supporting a metastatic nature. The nonrandom Cls included losses of 22q (31%), 1p33-p36 (6%), 16p13.1 (6%), and 16q (6%) and gains of 14 (25%), 12 (14%), and 7pI5-p2I (6%). No tumor exhibited high-level amplification. The associations between each CI and pathological features, including the growth pattern, turner size, and mitotic activity, were not evident. The only CI repeatedly detected in tumors with metastasis was monosomy 22, which presented in 2 of the 4 cases with metastasis but also in 2 of the 5 cases without recurrence for more than 5 years. Conclusions. Monosomy 22 was the most common CI in GCTs, which often coexisted with trisomy 14 (in 55% cases). Deletion of 22q seems to be, albeit not very specific, associated with the risk of early metastases of stage I disease. The role of loss-of-function mutation(s) of certain putative tumor suppressor gene(s) on 22q is worthy of further investigations. (c) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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