4.8 Article

Prognostic significance of frequent CLDN18-ARHGAP26/6 fusion in gastric signet-ring cell cancer

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 9, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-04907-0

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFC0905000, 2016YFC0905002, 2016YFC0906000, 2017YFC0909300]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81522028, 81673452, 81400120, 81402561]
  3. Sichuan Province Youth Science and Technology Innovative Research Team [2015TD0009]
  4. 1.3.5 project for disciplines of excellence, West China Hospital, Sichuan University
  5. Young Scientist start fund of Sichuan University [2015SCU04A44]
  6. Recruitment Program of Global Young Experts (known as the Thousand Young Talents Plan)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Signet-ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) has specific epidemiology and oncogenesis in gastric cancer, however, with no systematical investigation for prognostic genomic features. Here we report a systematic investigation conducted in 1868 Chinese gastric cancer patients indicating that signet-ring cells content was related to multiple clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes. We thus perform whole-genome sequencing on 32 pairs of SRC samples, and identify frequent CLDN18-ARHGAP26/6 fusion (25%). With 797 additional patients for validation, prevalence of CLDN18-ARHGAP26/6 fusion is noticed to be associated with signet-ring cell content, age at diagnosis, female/male ratio, and TNM stage. Importantly, patients with CLDN18-ARHGAP26/6 fusion have worse survival outcomes, and get no benefit from oxaliplatin/fluoropyrimidines-based chemotherapy, which is consistent with the fact of chemo-drug resistance acquired in CLDN18-ARHGAP26 introduced cell lines. Overall, this study provides insights into the clinical and genomic features of SRCC, and highlights the importance of frequent CLDN18-ARHGAP26/6 fusions in chemotherapy response for SRCC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available