4.5 Article

Comparison of methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (MSP) with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in peripheral blood of gastric cancer patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 87, 期 4, 页码 182-186

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.20106

关键词

gastric cancer; carcinoembryonic antigen mRNA; p16; E-cadherin; retinoic acid receptor beta (RAR beta)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Objectives: To achieve a complete cure in gastric cancer, primary and recurrent tumors must be detected at an early stage. This study was designed to compare carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)-specific reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (MSP) for p16, E-cadherin, and retinoic acid receptor beta (RARbeta) genes using blood samples from gastric cancer patients. Methods: Preoperative blood samples obtained from 41 patients with gastric cancer, including 9 with early-stage disease, and were subjected to RT-PCR and MSP assays. Results: Ten of 41 (24%) patients exhibited a CEA-specific signal by RTLPCR. Positive rates were 11, 13, 50, and 50% in stages I, II, III, and IV, respectively. A significant association was found between RT-PCR results and stage (P < 0.01). The MSP assay detected hypermethylation of p16 in 9 patients (22%), E-cadherin in 9 patients (22%), and RARbeta in 6 patients (15%). Altogether, 18 patients (44%) showed hypermethylation. The positive rates were 37, 50, 40, and 75% in stages I, II, III, and IV, respectively. A significant association was found between aberrant methylation and venous invasion (P < 0.05). Neither the CEA-specific signal nor hypermethylation was detected in serum from control volunteers. Conclusions: The detection rate of MSP was higher than that of RT-PCR in gastric cancer. Both assays can serve as markers that allow selection of those cases requiring more intensive screening and aggressive postoperative treatment. (C) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.5
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