4.7 Article

Gross genomic damage measured by DNA image cytometry independently predicts gastric cancer patient survival

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 101, 期 6, 页码 1011-1018

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605266

关键词

gastric cancer; image cytometry; flow cytometry; DNA ploidy; prognosis

类别

资金

  1. Dutch Cancer Society [KWF 2004-3051]
  2. Pathological Society of Great Britain
  3. Ireland Pilot Study Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: DNA aneuploidy reflects gross genomic changes. It can be measured by flow cytometry (FCM-DNA) or image cytometry (ICM-DNA). In gastric cancer, the prevalence of DNA aneuploidy has been reported to range from 27 to 100%, with conflicting associations with clinicopathological variables. The aim of our study was to compare the DNA ploidy status measured using FCM-DNA and ICM-DNA in gastric cancer and to evaluate its association with clinicopathological variables. METHODS: Cell nuclei were isolated from 221 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded gastric cancer samples. DNA ploidy was assessed using FCM-DNA and ICM-DNA. RESULTS: A total of 178 (80.5%) gastric cancer samples were classified as DNA aneuploid using FCM-DNA, compared with 172 (77.8%) gastric cancer samples when using ICM-DNA. Results obtained from both methods were concordant in 183 (82.8%) cases (kappa = 0.48). Patients with ICM-DNA diploid gastric cancer survived significantly longer than those with ICM-DNA aneuploid gastric cancer (log rank 10.1, P = 0.001). For FCM-DNA data, this difference did not reach statistical significance. The multivariate Cox model showed that ICM-DNA ploidy status predicted patient survival independently of tumour-node-metastasis status. CONCLUSION: ICM-DNA ploidy status is an independent predictor of survival in gastric cancer patients and may therefore be a more clinically relevant read out of gross genomic damage than FCM-DNA. British Journal of Cancer (2009) 101, 1011-1018. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605266 www.bjcancer.com (C) 2009 Cancer Research UK

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