4.5 Article

Association of Merkel cell polyomavirus infection with EGFR mutation status in Chinese non-small cell lung cancer patients

期刊

LUNG CANCER
卷 83, 期 3, 页码 341-346

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.01.002

关键词

Merkel cell polyomavirus; Lung cancer; Epidermal growth factor receptor; Mutation; Pathogenesis; Mutagen

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81273315]
  2. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation [LY12H10005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Female lung cancer patients with no smoking habit and non-mucinous adenocarcinoma have a higher rate of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations, which is related to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) sensitivity. Unfortunately the cause of EGFR gene mutations is still elusive. In this study, we search for the association between Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) infection and EGFR gene mutations. Materials and methods: We studied 189 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) samples for the presence of MCPyV large T (LT) DNA, LT antigen and EGFR hotspot mutations. Clinicopathological parameters of this cohort were also analyzed. Results: Thirty out of 163 adenocarcinoma and 2 out of 18 squamous cell carcinoma were found to have MCPyV LT DNA by PCR. lmmunostaining also showed LT protein expression in most of the DNA positive samples. EGFR mutations were more frequently detected in female (P=0.009) and non-smoking patients (P=0.0001). Furthermore, a significant association between MCPyV infection and EGFR mutations was found (P=0.001). Conclusion: Our study shows that MCPyV LT DNA is present in a subgroup of NSCLC, which is significantly correlated with EGFR mutations. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to find an association between MCPyV infection and EGFR hotspot mutations. These results support the possibility that MCPyV has a partial role in the carcinogenesis of NSCLC in a subgroup of patients. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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