Literature DB >> 15823109

Comparing the genetic changes detected in the primary and secondary tumor sites of ovarian cancer using comparative genomic hybridization.

A Fishman1, E Shalom-Paz, M Fejgin, E Gaber, M Altaras, A Amiel.   

Abstract

Our objective was to compare the genetic abnormalities in the primary tumors of epithelial ovarian cancer and their associated secondary peritoneal implants using comparative genomic hybridization (CGH). CGH was performed on seven apparent stage III ovarian serous cancer cases. Dissected tissue samples from the primary tumor and from the metastatic peritoneal implant were obtained at initial surgical staging and analyzed in each case. We used CGH as this technique allows the entire genome of the tumor to be examined simultaneously for chromosomal imbalances without the need for tissue culture or targeting of specific loci. The chromosomal abnormalities detected in the distinct sites were then reviewed and compared. CGH studies were successful in all 14 samples from the seven patients. The analysis revealed chromosomal aberrations in six patients with certain repeated changes as amplification of 1q, 2p, 2q, 3q, 6q, 8q, and 12p and underrepresentation of 18q and X chromosomes. Comparing the genomes of the primary tumors with the metastatic samples showed four cases with a balanced metastatic CGH profile while the primary site was aberrant. Greater chromosomal complexity associated with the primary site was detected in two other patients. In one case, both primary and secondary sites had no detectable chromosomal imbalances. The cytogenetic patterns in six of the seven primary tumors showed complex karyotypic changes, unlike the inconsistent findings that were associated with the secondary sites. The chromosomes of the secondary sites expressed either normal genomes or fewer genetic aberrations. Such genomic heterogeneity between the primary and secondary sites may indicate that the secondary peritoneal implants are de novo carcinogenesis occurrences. The results may support the concept that at least part of advanced ovarian cancer is a multicentric disease in the early stages. Further genetic studies are needed to reassess this assumption.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15823109     DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2005.15213.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer        ISSN: 1048-891X            Impact factor:   3.437


  5 in total

Review 1.  Mechanisms and Targets Involved in Dissemination of Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  Ulrich H Weidle; Fabian Birzele; Gwendlyn Kollmorgen; Rüdiger Rueger
Journal:  Cancer Genomics Proteomics       Date:  2016 11-12       Impact factor: 4.069

Review 2.  Evolutionary perspectives, heterogeneity and ovarian cancer: a complicated tale from past to present.

Authors:  Patriciu Achimas-Cadariu; Paul Kubelac; Alexandru Irimie; Ioana Berindan-Neagoe; Frank Rühli
Journal:  J Ovarian Res       Date:  2022-06-03       Impact factor: 5.506

Review 3.  Application of atomic force microscopy in cancer research.

Authors:  Xiangying Deng; Fang Xiong; Xiayu Li; Bo Xiang; Zheng Li; Xu Wu; Can Guo; Xiaoling Li; Yong Li; Guiyuan Li; Wei Xiong; Zhaoyang Zeng
Journal:  J Nanobiotechnology       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 10.435

4.  Epigenomic Profiling of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Stem-Cell Differentiation Reveals GPD1 Associated Immune Suppressive Microenvironment and Poor Prognosis.

Authors:  Lin-Yu Chen; Rui-Lan Huang; Po-Hsuan Su; Ling-Hui Chu; Yu-Chun Weng; Hui-Chen Wang; Hung-Cheng Lai; Kuo-Chang Wen
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 5.923

5.  Genome profiling of ovarian adenocarcinomas using pangenomic BACs microarray comparative genomic hybridization.

Authors:  Donatella Caserta; Moncef Benkhalifa; Marina Baldi; Francesco Fiorentino; Mazin Qumsiyeh; Massimo Moscarini
Journal:  Mol Cytogenet       Date:  2008-05-20       Impact factor: 2.009

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.