Comparison of Results between Cytogenetic Technique and Molecular Genetic Technique in Colorectal Carcinoma Patients
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Globally, 1.3 million people develop colon cancer every year, and 600,000 people die each year it. In Korea, colorectal carcinoma was associated with the highest death rate, accounting for 8,380 people, among solid cancers in 2015. Among the various methods for the diagnosis and study of colorectal carcinoma, the results obtained by cytogenetic and molecular genetic methods were compared. Detection rate was 47% in 18q, 40% in 17p , 27% in 22q, and 17% in 10q via CGH; detection rate was 57% in D18S59, 50% in D18S68, 50% in TP53CA, 47% in D18S6940% in D22S274, 37% in D22S283, 27% in D10S187, and 23% in D10S541 with LOH. Microsatellite marker matching rates were 100% in D22S274, 100% in D22S283, 100% in D10S186, 100% in D10S187, 100% in D10S541, 93% in D18S69, 93% in D18S68, 92% in TP53CA, and 89% in D18S59. The agreement rate between the two methods was 94.4% based on positive results using CGH. Based on the advantages of CGH, which was the ability to obtain information regarding the entire tumor genome at once, this experiment could identify the region with significant deletion using CGH and the more limited region LOH, with a completely different approach. LOH in the recurrent high-risk group, 18q21, was helpful in the selection of treatment modalities and in prognostic estimation as well as making the most appropriate decision for treatment. Therefore, it is suggested that LOH with surgical site tissues could be one of the treatment methods for recurrent high-risk group among patients with colorectal carcinoma.
Abstract
Globally, 1.3 million people develop colon cancer every year, and 600,000 people die each year it. In Korea, colorectal carcinoma was associated with the highest death rate, accounting for 8,380 people, among solid cancers in 2015. Among the various methods for the diagnosis and study of colorectal carcinoma, the results obtained by cytogenetic and molecular genetic methods were compared. Detection rate was 47% in 18q, 40% in 17p , 27% in 22q, and 17% in 10q via CGH; detection rate was 57% in D18S59, 50% in D18S68, 50% in TP53CA, 47% in D18S6940% in D22S274, 37% in D22S283, 27% in D10S187, and 23% in D10S541 with LOH. Microsatellite marker matching rates were 100% in D22S274, 100% in D22S283, 100% in D10S186, 100% in D10S187, 100% in D10S541, 93% in D18S69, 93% in D18S68, 92% in TP53CA, and 89% in D18S59. The agreement rate between the two methods was 94.4% based on positive results using CGH. Based on the advantages of CGH, which was the ability to obtain information regarding the entire tumor genome at once, this experiment could identify the region with significant deletion using CGH and the more limited region LOH, with a completely different approach. LOH in the recurrent high-risk group, 18q21, was helpful in the selection of treatment modalities and in prognostic estimation as well as making the most appropriate decision for treatment. Therefore, it is suggested that LOH with surgical site tissues could be one of the treatment methods for recurrent high-risk group among patients with colorectal carcinoma.
참고문헌 (20)
- Tariq K, "Colorectal cancer carcinogenesis: a review of mechanisms", Cancer Biol Med, 13(1), pp.120~135 (2016)[DOI]
- Viswanath B, "Recent insights into nanotechnology development for detection and treatment of colorectal cancer", Int J Nanomedicine, 2, pp.2491~2504 (2016)
- Chih-Yung Yang, "Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms Associated with Colorectal Cancer Susceptibility and Loss of Heterozygosity in a Taiwanese Population", PLoS ONE, 9(6), pp.e100060~ (2014), Public Library of Science (PLoS)[DOI]
- "Statistical Yearbook of Death Statistics. Mortality by cause of death, 1990-2015"[URL]
- Henrikson NB, "Family history and the natural history of colorectal cancer: systematic review", Genet Med, 17(9), pp.702~712 (2015)
- Paul R. A. O’Mahoney, "Adenocarcinoma of the ileal pouch mucosa: case report and literature review", International Journal of Colorectal Disease, 30(1), pp.11~18 (2015), Springer Nature[DOI]
- Takeshi Sawada, "Association between genomic alterations and metastatic behavior of colorectal cancer identified by array-based comparative genomic hybridization", Genes, Chromosomes and Cancer, 52(2), pp.140~149 (2013), Wiley-Blackwell[DOI]
- Peter Zauber, "Copy number of the Adenomatous Polyposis Coli gene is not always neutral in sporadic colorectal cancers with loss of heterozygosity for the gene", BMC Cancer, 16(1), pp.213~ (2016), Springer Nature[DOI]
- Provenzale D, "Colorectal cancer screening, version 1. 2015", J Natl Compr Canc Netw, 13(8), pp.959~968 (2015)
- Shi ZZ, "Genomic profiling of rectal adenoma and carcinoma by array-based comparative genomic hybridization", BMC Med Genomics, 5, pp.52~ (2012)
- Guo T, "Allelic imbalance on chromosomes 3p, 9p and 17p in malignant progression of laryngeal mucosa", J Laryngol Otol, 122(1), pp.72~77 (2008)
- Datta A, "Transcriptome profiling identifies genes and pathways deregulated upon floxuridine treatment in colorectal cancer cells harboring GOF mutant p53", Genom Data, 17(8), pp.47~51 (2016)
- Laczmanska I, "Copy number alterations of chromosomal regions enclosing protein tyrosine phosphatase receptor-like genes in colorectal cancer", Pathol Res Pract, 210(12), pp.893~896 (2014)
- Watanabe T, "Molecular predictors of survival after adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer", N Engl J Med, 344(16), pp.1196~1206 (2001)
- Nakao K, "Genetic changes in primary colorectal cancer by comparative genomic hybridization", Surg Today, 28(5), pp.567~569 (1998)
- De Angelis PM, "Chromosomal gains and losses in primary colorectal carcinomas detected by CGH and their associations with tumour DNA ploidy, genotypes and phenotypes", Br J Cancer, 80(4), pp.526~535 (1999)
- Torabi K, "Patterns of somatic uniparental disomy identify novel tumor suppressor genes in colorectal cancer", Carcinogenesis, 36(10), pp.1103~1110 (2015)
- Yano S, "Accuracy of an array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) technique in detecting DNA copy number aberrations:comparison with conventional CGH and loss of heterozygosity analysis in prostate cancer", Cancer Genet Cytogenet, 150(2), pp.122~127 (2004)
- Grade M, "Molecular cytogenetics: genomic imbalances in colorectal cancer and their clinical impact", Cell Oncol, 28(3), pp.71~84 (2006)
- Skotheim R, "Evaluation of loss of heterozygosity", allelic imbalance scoring in tumor DNA, 2001, pp.127(1), 64~70