4.2 Review

The biology behind prognostic factors of cutaneous melanoma

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN ONCOLOGY
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 163-168

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/CCO.0b013e328337fe8f

关键词

biology; melanoma; pathology; prognosis

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review Cutaneous melanoma still represents a paradox among all solid tumors. It is the cancer for which the best prognostic markers ever identified in solid tumors are available, yet there is very little understanding of their biological significance. This review focuses on recent biological data that shed light on the clinico-biological correlations that support the 2010 AJCC melanoma staging system. Recent findings E-cadherin is a keratinocyte-melanoma adhesion molecule whose loss is required for the acquisition of an invasive phenotype. Recent data showed that this loss is mediated by the transcription factor Tbx3 which is also involved in suppressing melanocytes senescence. CCN3 is present in melanoma cells close to the epidermal-dermal interface, but not in melanoma cells that have invaded deep into the dermis. It has been recently demonstrated that CCN3 decreases the transcription and activation of matrix metalloproteinases and suppresses the invasion of melanoma cells. These results suggest that the absence of CCN3 in advanced melanoma cells contributes to their invasive phenotype and that ulceration modifies the microenvironment allowing CCN3-depleted melanoma cells to invade. Summary A major challenge is to replace outcome clustering based on artificial biomarker breakpoints by a continuous multidimensional prognostic model. Major improvement will come from shared computerized tools allowing to generate continuous likelihood scores for diagnosis, prognosis and response prediction. This will lead to the development of platforms which can be used by scientists from different fields to integrate and share high-quality data in the precompetitive setting and generate new probabilistic causal models.

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

4.2
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