4.7 Article

Multiple mechanisms of telomere maintenance exist and differentially affect clinical outcome in diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 14, 期 13, 页码 4134-4140

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0099

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Funding Source: Custom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study aims to investigate the prevalence of the two known telomere maintenance mechanisms, telomerase activity (TA) and alternative lengthening of telomeres (ALT), and to assess their prognostic relevance in diffuse malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (DMPM). Experimental Design: In 44 DMPM specimens obtained from 38 patients, TA was determined using the telomeric repeat amplification protocol and ALT was detected by assaying ALT-associated promyelocytic leukemia nuclear bodies. The prognostic significance of telomere maintenance mechanisms was analyzed by Cox regression in the overall series and in a subset of 29 patients who underwent a uniform treatment regimen consisting of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic i.p. chemotherapy. Results: Telomere maintenance mechanisms were detectable in 86.4% of DMPM: ALT or TA alone was found in 18.2% or 63.6% of lesions, respectively, whereas two cases (4.6%) were ALT+/TA+. TA and ALT proved to be inversely associated (P = 0.002). In the overall series, TA was prognostic for 4-year relapse (TA+ versus TA-, hazard ratio, 3.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-8.86; P = 0.018) and cancer-related death (TA+ Versus TA-, hazard ratio, 3.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-12.51; P = 0.045), whereas ALT failed to significantly affect clinical outcome. These results held true also in the subset of patients submitted to uniform treatment with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic i.p. chemotherapy. Conclusions: Our results indicate that both known telomere maintenance mechanisms,TA and A LT, are present in DMPM and differentially affect patient prognosis.

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

4.7
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