Article

Prognostic significance and gene expression profiles of p53 mutations in microsatellite-stable stage III colorectal adenocarcinomas.

Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.53). 01/2012; 7(1):e30020. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030020
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although the prognostic value of p53 abnormalities in Stage III microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancers (CRCs) is known, the gene expression profiles specific to the p53 status in the MSS background are not known. Therefore, the current investigation has focused on identification and validation of the gene expression profiles associated with p53 mutant phenotypes in MSS Stage III CRCs. Genomic DNA extracted from 135 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues, was analyzed for microsatellite instability (MSI) and p53 mutations. Further, mRNA samples extracted from five p53-mutant and five p53-wild-type MSS-CRC snap-frozen tissues were profiled for differential gene expression by Affymetrix Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 arrays. Differentially expressed genes were further validated by the high-throughput quantitative nuclease protection assay (qNPA), and confirmed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) and by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Survival rates were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. A higher incidence of p53 mutations was found in MSS (58%) than in MSI (30%) phenotypes. Both univariate (log-rank, P = 0.025) and multivariate (hazard ratio, 2.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-5.08) analyses have demonstrated that patients with MSS-p53 mutant phenotypes had poor CRC-specific survival when compared to MSS-p53 wild-type phenotypes. Gene expression analyses identified 84 differentially expressed genes. Of 49 down-regulated genes, LPAR6, PDLIM3, and PLAT, and, of 35 up-regulated genes, TRIM29, FUT3, IQGAP3, and SLC6A8 were confirmed by qNPA, qRT-PCR, and IHC platforms. p53 mutations are associated with poor survival of patients with Stage III MSS CRCs and p53-mutant and wild-type phenotypes have distinct gene expression profiles that might be helpful in identifying aggressive subsets.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
144 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Under the auspices of the College of American Pathologists, the current state of knowledge regarding pathologic prognostic factors (factors linked to outcome) and predictive factors (factors predicting response to therapy) in colorectal carcinoma was evaluated. A multidisciplinary group of clinical (including the disciplines of medical oncology, surgical oncology, and radiation oncology), pathologic, and statistical experts in colorectal cancer reviewed all relevant medical literature and stratified the reported prognostic factors into categories that reflected the strength of the published evidence demonstrating their prognostic value. Accordingly, the following categories of prognostic factors were defined. Category I includes factors definitively proven to be of prognostic import based on evidence from multiple statistically robust published trials and generally used in patient management. Category IIA includes factors extensively studied biologically and/or clinically and repeatedly shown to have prognostic value for outcome and/or predictive value for therapy that is of sufficient import to be included in the pathology report but that remains to be validated in statistically robust studies. Category IIB includes factors shown to be promising in multiple studies but lacking sufficient data for inclusion in category I or IIA. Category III includes factors not yet sufficiently studied to determine their prognostic value. Category IV includes factors well studied and shown to have no prognostic significance. The medical literature was critically reviewed, and the analysis revealed specific points of variability in approach that prevented direct comparisons among published studies and compromised the quality of the collective data. Categories of variability recognized included the following: (1) methods of analysis, (2) interpretation of findings, (3) reporting of data, and (4) statistical evaluation. Additional points of variability within these categories were defined from the collective experience of the group. Reasons for the assignment of an individual prognostic factor to category I, II, III, or IV (categories defined by the level of scientific validation) were outlined with reference to the specific types of variability associated with the supportive data. For each factor and category of variability related to that factor, detailed recommendations for improvement were made. The recommendations were based on the following aims: (1) to increase the uniformity and completeness of pathologic evaluation of tumor specimens, (2) to enhance the quality of the data needed for definitive evaluation of the prognostic value of individual prognostic factors, and (3) ultimately, to improve patient care. Factors that were determined to merit inclusion in category I were as follows: the local extent of tumor assessed pathologically (the pT category of the TNM staging system of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer [AJCC/UICC]); regional lymph node metastasis (the pN category of the TNM staging system); blood or lymphatic vessel invasion; residual tumor following surgery with curative intent (the R classification of the AJCC/UICC staging system), especially as it relates to positive surgical margins; and preoperative elevation of carcinoembryonic antigen elevation (a factor established by laboratory medicine methods rather than anatomic pathology). Factors in category IIA included the following: tumor grade, radial margin status (for resection specimens with nonperitonealized surfaces), and residual tumor in the resection specimen following neoadjuvant therapy (the ypTNM category of the TNM staging system of the AJCC/UICC). (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
    Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine 08/2000; 124(7):979-94. · 2.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A recent study published by Sjoblom and colleagues [T. Sjoblom, S. Jones, L.D. Wood, D.W. Parsons, J. Lin, T.D. Barber, D. Mandelker, R.J. Leary, J. Ptak, N. Silliman, S. Szabo, P. Buckhaults, C. Farrell, P. Meeh, S.D. Markowitz, J. Willis, D. Dawson, J.K. Willson, A.F. Gazdar, J. Hartigan, L. Wu, C. Liu, G. Parmigiani, B.H. Park, K.E. Bachman, N. Papadopoulos, B. Vogelstein, K.W. Kinzler, V.E. Velculescu, The consensus coding sequences of human breast and colorectal cancers. Science 314 (2006) 268-274.] performed comprehensive sequencing of 13,023 human genes and identified mutations in genes specific to breast and colorectal tumors, providing insight into organ-specific tumor biology. Here we present a systematic analysis of the functional classifications of Sjoblom's "CAN" genes, a subset of these validated mutant genes, that identifies novel organ-specific biological themes and molecular pathways associated with disease-specific etiology. This analysis links four somatically mutated genes associated with diverse oncological types to colorectal and breast cancers through established TGF-beta1-regulated interactions, revealing mechanistic differences in these cancers and providing potential diagnostic and therapeutic targets.
    Genomics 07/2008; 91(6):508-11. · 2.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Microsatellite-stable, near-diploid (MSI-CIN-) colorectal carcinomas have been reported, but it is not clear as to whether these tumours form a discrete group or represent one end of the distribution of MSI-CIN+ cancers. In order to address this question, we screened 23 MSI-CIN- colorectal cancers for gains and losses using array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) based on large-insert clones at about 1 Mb density. We compared our findings with those from a small set of MSI+CIN+ cancers, and with our reported data from MSI-CIN+ and MSI+CIN- cancers. We found no evidence of any form of genomic instability in MSI-CIN- cancers. At the level of the chromosome arm, the MSI-CIN- cancers had significantly fewer gains and losses than MSI-CIN+ tumours, but more than the MSI+CIN- and MSI+CIN+ lesions. The chromosomal-scale changes found in MSI-CIN- cancers generally involved the same sites as those in MSI-CIN+ tumours, and in both cancer groups, the best predictor of a specific change was the total number of such changes in that tumour. A few chromosomal-scale changes did, however, differ between the MSI-CIN- and MSI-CIN+ pathways. MSI-CIN- cancers showed: low frequencies of gain of 9p and 19p; infrequent loss of 5q and a high frequency of 20p gain. Overall, our data suggested that the MSI-CIN- group is heterogeneous, one type of MSI-CIN- cancer having few (< or =6) chromosomal-scale changes and the other with more (> or =10) changes resembling MSI-CIN+ cancers. At the level of individual clones, frequent and/or discrete gains or losses were generally located within regions of chromosomal-scale changes in both MSI-CIN- and MSI-CIN+ cancers, and fewer losses and gains were present in MSI-CIN- than MSI-CIN+ tumours. No changes by clone, which were specific to the MSI-CIN- cancers, were found. In addition to indicating differences among the cancer groups, our results also detected over 50 sites (amplifications, potential homozygous deletion and gains or losses which extended over only a few megabases) which might harbour uncharacterized oncogenes or tumour suppressor loci. In conclusion, our data support the suggestion that some MSI-CIN- carcinomas form a qualitatively different group from the other cancer types, and also suggest that the MSI-CIN- group is itself heterogeneous.
    Oncogene 01/2005; 24(1):118-29. · 8.56 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
37 Downloads
Available from
May 21, 2014