4.8 Article

Molecular classifiers for gastric cancer and nonmalignant diseases of the gastric mucosa

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 64, 期 4, 页码 1255-1265

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-1850

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [98/14335-2, 99/11962-9, 99/07390-0] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High incidence of gastric cancer-related death is mainly due to diagnosis at an advanced stage in addition to the lack of adequate neoadjuvant therapy. Hence, new tools aimed at early diagnosis would have a positive impact in the outcome of the disease. Using cDNA arrays having 376 genes either identified previously as altered in gastric tumors or known to be altered in human cancer, we determined expression signature of 99 tissue fragments representing normal gastric mucosa, gastritis, intestinal metaplasia, and adenocarcinomas. We first validated the array by identifying molecular markers that are associated with intestinal metaplasia, considered as a transition stage of gastric adenocarcinomas of the intestinal type as well as markers that are associated with diffuse type of gastric adenocarcinomas. Next, we applied Fisher's linear discriminant analysis in an exhaustive search of trios of genes that could be used to build classifiers for class distinction. Many classifiers could distinguish between normal and tumor samples, whereas, for the distinction of gastritis from tumor and for metaplasia from tumor, fewer classifiers were identified. Statistical validations showed that trios that discriminate between normal and tumor samples are powerful classifiers to distinguish between tumor and nontumor samples. More relevant, it was possible to identify samples of intestinal metaplasia that have expression signature resembling that of an adenocarcinoma and can now be used for follow-up of patients to determine their potential as a prognostic test for malignant transformation.

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

4.8
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