Deletion of 1p32-p36 is the most frequent genetic change and poor prognostic marker in adenoid cystic carcinoma of the salivary glands

Texas Children's Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and Spectral Genomics, Houston, Texas, USA.
Clinical Cancer Research (Impact Factor: 8.19). 09/2008; 14(16):5181-7. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0158
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) is a relatively uncommon salivary gland malignancy known for its protean phenotypic features and pernicious clinical behavior. Currently, no effective therapy is available for patients with advanced nonresectable, recurrent, and/or metastatic disease. The purpose of this study is to identify prognostic factors other than tumor stage that can be used to predict the outcome of the patients with ACC.
We used comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) to identify copy number aberrations in 53 primary ACCs. Array CGH and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis was used to validate CGH results on selected cases. We correlated these copy number aberrations with clinicopathologic factors using Pearson's chi2 or by the two-tailed Fisher exact test. The disease-specific survival and disease-free intervals were generated by the Kaplan-Meier product limit method.
Chromosomal losses (n = 134) were more frequent than gains (n = 74). The most frequent genetic change was the loss of 1p32-p36 in 44% of the cases followed by 6q23-q27, and 12q12-q14. The most frequently gained chromosomal regions were 8 and 18. Of the chromosomal aberrations, loss of 1p32-p36 was the only abnormality significantly associated with patient's outcome.
This study, for the first time, identifies loss of 1p32-p36 as a significant aberration in ACC. Molecular characterization of 1p32-36 region using the available genomic technologies may lead to the identification of new genes critical to the development of novel therapeutic targets for this disease copy number aberration.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cancer pain sends a message. It is frightening to the patient. It heralds progression or recurrence to the oncologist. It is a biological readout of the cancer-nerve interaction for the scientist. Nerves have been considered bystanders within the cancer microenvironment. However, emerging information suggests that nerves are recruited and participate in the carcinogenic process. These newly formed fibers respond to mediators secreted by constituents of the cancer microenvironment. In this manner, these nerves serve as bellwethers and sensors embedded within the cancer. When we rigorously assess patients' cancer pain, we gain insight into the action of cancer. An enhanced understanding of cancer pain offers biological questions that if answered might not only provide relief from cancer pain but might also improve survival.
    Pain 04/2015; 156 Suppl 1:S32-4. DOI:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000099 · 5.84 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Despite numerous studies, the tumor biology of pleomorphic adenomas, the most common salivary gland tumors, is still not completely defined. In order to identify further candidate genes important for tumor biology of pleomorphic adenomas, extended cytogenetic and molecular analysis are mandatory. Methods We performed a detailed molecular cytogenetic analysis using comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) followed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) with probes for chromosome X, 16p, 17, and 20 on a large cohort of pleomorphic adenomas (n = 29). ResultsWe could confirm previously described deletions in pleomorphic adenomas affecting 16p, 17, 20q, and 22 by FISH and/or CGH analysis. Moreover, our CGH study revealed novel candidate regions on 8p23.1pter, 9p, 10q25.1q25.3, and 11q24qter in the series of analyzed pleomorphic adenomas. Conclusion Our present study reveals new insights in novel candidate regions implicated in pleomorphic adenoma tumorigenesis which should be considered in further molecular studies. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 35: 1431-1438, 2013
    Head & Neck 01/2012; 35(10). DOI:10.1002/hed.23147 · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Salivary gland-like tumors of the breast show a great variety of architectural patterns and cellular differentiations such as glandular, myoepithelial, squamous, and even mesenchymal phenotypes. However, currently little is known about the evolution and cellular differentiation of these tumors. For that reason, we performed an in situ triple immunofluorescence lineage/differentiation tracing (isTILT) and qRT-PCR study of basal (K5/K14), glandular (K7/K8/18), and epidermal-specific squamous (K10) keratins, p63, and smooth muscle actin (SMA; myoepithelial marker) with the aim to construct and trace different cell lineages and define their cellular hierarchy in tumors with myoepithelial differentiation. isTILT analysis of a series of 28 breast, salivary, and lacrimal gland tumors, including pleomorphic adenomas (n=8), epithelial-myoepithelial tumors (n=9), and adenoid cystic carcinomas (n=11) revealed that all tumor types contained K5/K14-positive progenitor cells in varying frequencies from a few percent up to 15%. These K5/K14-positive tumor cells were found to differentiate to glandular- (K8/18-positive) and myoepithelial-lineage (SMA-positive)-specific cells and were also shown to generate various heterologeous cell differentiations such as squamous and mesenchymal progenies. p63 was co-expressed with K5/K14 in basal-like progenitor cells, myoepithelial, and squamous cells but not in glandular cells. Our results show that the corresponding counterpart tumors of breast and salivary/lacrimal glands have identical cellular compositions. Taken together, our isTILT and RNA-expression data indicate that look-alike tumors of the breast represent a special subgroup of basal-type tumors with benign or usually low malignant potential.Modern Pathology advance online publication, 5 April 2013; doi:10.1038/modpathol.2013.45.
    Modern Pathology 04/2013; DOI:10.1038/modpathol.2013.45 · 6.36 Impact Factor