4.8 Article

Oncogenic BRAF Mutation with CDKN2A Inactivation Is Characteristic of a Subset of Pediatric Malignant Astrocytomas

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 70, 期 2, 页码 512-519

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-1851

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Pediatric Low Grade Astrocytoma Foundation
  2. National Brain Tumor Society
  3. Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation
  4. Harriet H. Samuelsson Foundation
  5. Center for Children's Brain Tumors at Lucile Packard Children's Hospital
  6. NIH [CA097257, CA101777, CA121940, HG000205]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Malignant astrocytomas are a deadly solid tumor in children. Limited understanding of their underlying genetic basis has contributed to modest progress in developing more effective therapies. In an effort to identify such alterations, we performed a genome-wide search for DNA copy number aberrations (CNA) in a panel of 33 tumors encompassing grade 1 through grade 4 tumors. Genomic amplifications of 10-fold or greater were restricted to grade 3 and 4 astrocytomas and included the MDM4 (1q32), PDGFRA (4q12), MET (7q21), CMYC (8q24), PVT1 (8q24), WNT5B (12p13), and IGF1R (15q26) genes. Homozygous deletions of CDKN2A (9p21), PTEN (10q26), and TP53 (17p3.1) were evident among grade 2 to 4 tumors. BRAF gene rearrangements that were indicated in three tumors prompted the discovery of KIAA1549-BRAF fusion transcripts expressed in 10 of 10 grade 1 astrocytomas and in none of the grade 2 to 4 tumors. In contrast, an oncogenic missense BRAF mutation (BRAF(V600E)) was detected in 7 of 31 grade 2 to 4 tumors but in none of the grade 1 tumors. BRAF(V600E) mutation seems to define a subset of malignant astrocytomas in children, in which there is frequent concomitant homozygous deletion of CDKN2A (five of seven cases). Taken together, these findings highlight BRAF as a frequent mutation target in pediatric astrocytomas, with distinct types of BRAF alteration occurring in grade 1 versus grade 2 to 4 tumors. Cancer Res; 70(2); 512-9. (C)2010 AACR.

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