4.6 Article

Distinct genetic aberrations in oesophageal adeno and squamous carcinoma

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATION
卷 43, 期 12, 页码 1233-1239

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/eci.12163

关键词

Adenosquamous mixed cancers; EGFR; esophageal adenocarcinoma; esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; p53; Wnt

资金

  1. Indian Council for Medical Research, Government of India
  2. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India [BT/PR6647/Med/14/866/2005, BT/PR11873/MED/30/173/2009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe two main oesophageal cancer subtypes namely adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma exhibit interesting clinical, pathological and geographical variations with the former being more common in the West and the latter in Asia. Materials and methodsWe evaluated status of p53, EGFR, Wnt and HPV in addition to microsatellite instability and loss of heterozygosity of several chromosomal loci in the two oesophageal cancer subtypes from India. The comparative analysis was extended to two oesophageal adenosquamous mixed cancer samples. ResultsOur results reveal a high frequency of EGFR overexpression in ESCC as against EAC, while Wnt activation was a significantly more common event in EAC as against ESCC. Frequencies of p53 perturbations were not significantly different in the two subtypes. Interestingly, the EGFR and Wnt status in adenocarcinoma and squamous components of the two oesophageal adenosquamous cancer samples were identical to primary tumours. In addition, no common molecular aberration (including instability and loss of heterozygosity) in several microsatellites was detected in DNA isolated from the two components in both adenosquamous cancer samples. ConclusionsOur results reveal the presence of distinct aberrations in oesophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma which are replicated in the respective components of adenosquamous cancers. The study therefore suggests perhaps an independent origin of the two components of oesophageal adenosquamous mixed cancer.

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

4.6
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