4.7 Article

Melanoma MicroRNA Signature Predicts Post-Recurrence Survival

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 1577-1586

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-2721

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Cancer Center Support Grant, NIH [NCI 2 P30 CA16087-23]
  2. Elsa U. Pardee Foundation
  3. ConCerN Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To identify a melanoma microRNA (miRNA) expression signature that is predictive of outcome and then evaluate its potential to improve risk stratification when added to the standard-of-care staging criteria. Experimental Design: Total RNA was extracted from 59 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded melanoma metastases and hybridized to miRNA arrays containing 911 probes. We then correlated miRNA expression with post-recurrence survival and other clinicopathologic criteria. Results: We identified a signature of 18 miRNAs whose overexpression was significantly correlated with longer survival, defined as more than 18 months post-recurrence survival. Subsequent cross-validation showed that a small subset of these miRNAs can predict post-recurrence survival in metastatic melanoma with an estimated accuracy of 80.2% (95% confidence interval, 79.8-80.6%). In contrast to standard-of-care staging criteria, a six-miRNA signature significantly stratified stage III patients into better and worse prognostic categories, and a multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed the signature to be an independent predictor of survival. Furthermore, we showed that most miRNAs from the signature also showed differential expression between patients with better and worse prognoses in the corresponding paired primary melanoma. Conclusions: MiRNA signatures have potential as clinically relevant biomarkers of prognosis in metastatic melanoma. Our data suggest that molecularly based models of risk assessment can improve the standard staging criteria and support the incorporation of miRNAs into such models. Clin Cancer Res; 16(5); 1577-86. (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

4.7
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