4.7 Article

Genomic profiling of gastric carcinoma in situ and adenomas by array-based comparative genomic hybridization

期刊

JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 221, 期 1, 页码 96-105

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/path.2686

关键词

gastric carcinoma in situ; gastric adenoma; array CGH; Vienna classification

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture of Japan [20790286]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22590335, 20790286] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although genomic copy number aberrations (CNAs) of gastric carcinoma at the advanced stage have already been extensively characterized by array comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH) analysis, those of gastric carcinoma in situ (CIS) are still poorly understood. Furthermore, no reports have demonstrated correlations between CNAs and histopathological features of gastric adenoma. In this study, we investigated CNAs of 20 gastric CISs (Vienna category 4.2) and 20 adenomas including seven low-grade adenomas (LGA; Vienna category 3) and 13 high-grade adenomas (HGA; Vienna category 4.1), using oligonucleotide-based array CGH. The most frequent aberrations in CIS were gains at 8q (85%) and 20q (500/0), and losses at 5q (50%) and 17p (500/0), suggesting that these CNAs are involved in the development of CIS. We found that the pattern of CNAs in HGA was quite different from that in LGA. The most frequent CNAs in HGA were gains at 8q (62%) and 7pq (54%), whereas those in LGA were gain at 7q21.3-q22.1 (57%) and loss at 5q (43%). Interestingly, gains at 8q and 7pq, both of which occurred most frequently in HGA, were not detected in any cases of LGA. Of note, 8q gain was detected most frequently in both HGA and CIS but was undetected in LGA. Since HGA is believed to have a higher risk of progression to invasive carcinoma than LGA, these data suggest that 8q gain is important for the malignant transformation of gastric adenoma. Copyright (C) 2010 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据