4.4 Article

BRAFV600E Mutation in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma: Significant Association with Node Metastases and Extra Thyroidal Invasion

期刊

ENDOCRINE PATHOLOGY
卷 23, 期 2, 页码 83-93

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12022-011-9184-5

关键词

Thyroid carcinoma; BRAF mutation; Lymph node metastases; Extra-thyroidal invasion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

B-Raf () is the strongest activator in the downstream of MAP kinase signaling. The somatic point mutation of gene (V600E) is the most common and specific event in papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC). However, its prevalence is variable among different studies and its association with clinico-pathological features is controversial. This study tests the prevalence of (V600E) mutation in thyroid cancer patients in Indian subcontinental population. We analyzed 140 thyroid tumor specimens for gene mutation at codon 600 using mutant-allele-specific amplification, single-strand conformation polymorphism, Mutector assay, and DNA sequencing of the PCR-amplified exon 15. mutation at codon 600 was detected in 46 of 86 PTC patients (53.4%) from Indian subcontinental cohort. Frequency of mutation varied across the subtypes of PTCs. (V600E) mutation was more common in the conventional PTC (38 out of 62; 61%) than in the follicular variant of PTC (2 out of 17; 11.7%). None of the 8 follicular thyroid adenomas, 14 follicular thyroid carcinomas, 16 medullary thyroid carcinomas, and 16 benign hyperplasia patients showed any exon 15 mutation. We found significant correlation between mutation status and extra-thyroidal invasion, lymph node metastasis, and tumor stage. However no correlation was observed with gender, age, and tumor size of the patients. Thus our findings suggest that (V600E) is a prevalent genetic alteration in adult sporadic PTCs in Indian cohort and it may be responsible for the progression of classic variant of PTC to metastatic and poorly differentiated subtype and likely to have significant impact on its diagnostic and prognostic management.

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

4.4
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