Literature DB >> 10325509

Genetic and chromosomal alterations in prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and carcinoma detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization.

J Qian1, R B Jenkins, D G Bostwick.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In this review, we discuss the utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in the determination of genetic and chromosomal alterations in prostate cancer specimens. We also discuss the genetic association between prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN) and adenocarcinoma as detected by FISH and other techniques. METHODS AND
RESULTS: FISH is a commonly used technique for the determination of gene and chromosome dosage. In tissue sections, FISH allows precise histopathologic correlation of multiple foci of normal epithelium, premalignant lesions, and carcinoma within a single specimen, including study of intratumoral heterogeneity. PIN and prostatic carcinoma foci have a similar proportion of genetic changes, but foci of carcinoma usually have more alterations. This supports the hypothesis that PIN is the most likely precursor of prostatic carcinoma. The most common genetic alterations in PIN and carcinoma are: (1) gain of chromosome 7, particularly 7q31; (2) loss of 8p and gain of 8q, and (3) loss of 10q, 16q and 18q. Inactivation of tumor suppressor genes and/or overexpression of oncogenes in these regions may be important for the initiation and progression of prostate cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: FISH is a useful technique to determine genetic relationships between cancer and its precursors. PIN and prostatic carcinoma foci have a similar proportion of genetic alterations, suggesting that PIN is often a precursor of prostatic carcinoma. Genes on chromosomes 7, 8, 10, 16 and 18 may play an important role in both initiation and progression of prostatic carcinoma.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10325509     DOI: 10.1159/000019883

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  7 in total

1.  Is repeat biopsy for isolated high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia necessary?

Authors:  Arnold I Chin; Dhiren S Dave; Jacob Rajfer
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2007

2.  Mapping and gene expression profile of the minimally overrepresented 8q24 region in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Norihiko Tsuchiya; Yasushi Kondo; Atsushi Takahashi; Hemant Pawar; Junqi Qian; Kazunari Sato; Michael M Lieber; Robert B Jenkins
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 4.307

3.  Postatrophic hyperplasia of the prostate gland: neoplastic precursor or innocent bystander?

Authors:  R Shah; N R Mucci; A Amin; J A Macoska; M A Rubin
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 4.307

Review 4.  My approach to intraductal lesions of the prostate gland.

Authors:  M Pickup; T H Van der Kwast
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2007-01-19       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 5.  High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and prostate cancer risk reduction.

Authors:  Mitchell S Steiner
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2003-02-21       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 6.  Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia.

Authors:  D G Bostwick
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 2.862

7.  Glyoxalase 1 Expression as a Novel Diagnostic Marker of High-Grade Prostatic Intraepithelial Neoplasia in Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Liliana Rounds; Ray B Nagle; Andrea Muranyi; Jana Jandova; Scott Gill; Elizabeth Vela; Georg T Wondrak
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 6.639

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.