4.0 Article

Insulin-like Growth Factor 2 Gene Expression Molecularly Differentiates Pleuropulmonary Blastoma and Embryonal Rhabdomyosarcoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC HEMATOLOGY ONCOLOGY
Volume 37, Issue 6, Pages e356-e360

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPH.0000000000000382

Keywords

pleuropulmonary blastoma; embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma; insulin-like growth factor; microarray; Human Exon array

Funding

  1. Children's Hospital Los Angeles Clinical Translational Science Institute [1UL1RR031986]
  2. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), NIH
  3. Max of a Million Dreams Foundation
  4. NCI [UO1 CA114757-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The sarcomatous element in pleuropulmonary blastoma (PPB) is often histologically indistinguishable from embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma (ERMS). A diagnosis of PPB is often made after definitive surgical resection based on pathologic features, most notably the presence of hamartomatous pulmonary elements. Samples from seven PPB patients were obtained from the rhabdomyosarcomatous portion of the tumor by macrodissection. Representative ERMS tumor tissue was selected from 21 ERMS patient samples. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue scrolls from each sample were analyzed using the Affymetrix Human Exon arrays. All PPB patients and 7 of 21 ERMS patients were 3 years old and younger. Twenty transcripts (10 annotated, 10 noncoding RNAs) were significantly differentially expressed in ERMS when compared with PPB samples. Insulin-like growth factor 2 (IGF2) was uniformly overexpressed in ERMS (19/21>400) but was expressed at low levels in PPB (P<0.001). Two ERMS cases that had low level IGF2 expression were 3 years and younger of age. No other differences between the 2 approached this degree of significance, despite a common rhabdomyogenic phenotype in the sarcomatous areas of PPB. PPB, unlike most ERMS, appears not to be driven by autocrine IGF2 signaling.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available