4.3 Article

Analysis of the molecular features of rectal carcinoid tumors to identify new biomarkers that predict biological malignancy

Journal

ONCOTARGET
Volume 6, Issue 26, Pages 22114-22125

Publisher

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.4294

Keywords

carcinoid; non-coding RNA; epigenetics; neuroendocrine tumor; rectum

Funding

  1. Ono Cancer Research Foundation
  2. Takeda Science Foundation
  3. Sapporo Jikeikai Tomoiki Foundation
  4. Suhara Memorial Foundation
  5. Japanese Society of Gastroenterology Research Foundation
  6. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26640101, 25430115, 221S0001] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although gastrointestinal carcinoid tumors are relatively rare in the digestive tract, a quarter of them are present in the rectum. In the absence of specific tumor biomarkers, lymphatic or vascular invasion is generally used to predict the risk of lymph node metastasis. We, therefore, examined the genetic and epigenetic alterations potentially associated with lymphovascular invasion among 56 patients with rectal carcinoid tumors. We also conducted a microRNA (miRNA) array analysis. Our analysis failed to detect mutations in BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, or PIK3CA or any microsatellite instability (MSI); however, we did observe CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) positivity in 13% (7/56) of the carcinoid tumors. The CIMP-positive status was significantly correlated with lymphovascular invasion (P = 0.036). The array analysis revealed that microRNA-885 (miR-885)-5p was the most up-regulated miRNA in the carcinoid tumors with lymphovascular invasion compared with that in those without invasion. In addition, high miR-885-5p expression was independently associated with lymphovascular invasion (P = 0.0002). In conclusion, our findings suggest that miR-885-5p and CIMP status may be useful biomarkers for predicting biological malignancy in patients with rectal carcinoid tumors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available