Jing Wang Chiang1, Beth Y Karlan, Llana Cass, Rae Lynn Baldwin. 1. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Boulevard., 160W, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcome of ovarian cancer patients whose tumors contain BRCA1 genes silenced by promoter hypermethylation to patients with germline BRCA1 mutations and to patients with wild-type BRCA genes. METHODS: Ovarian cancers from a hospital-based tumor bank were characterized as having a BRCA1 mutation; or a methylated BRCA1, BRCA1 pseudogene or MLH1 promotor; or a wild-type BRCA gene. Survival of patients with methylated BRCA1 promoters (N = 11) was compared to that of patients with wild-type BRCA genes (N = 30) and BRCA1 mutations (N = 22). A methylator phenotype was defined to include tumors with hypermethylation of BRCA1, hMLH1 and/or dBRCA1 pseudogene promoters (N = 23). RESULTS: All cohorts had comparable clinical factors except for age at diagnosis. Median age of methylated BRCA1 and wild-type BRCA patients was older than BRCA1 mutation carriers (60 and 63 versus 48 years; P = 0.04). The median disease-free interval was significantly shorter for patients with a methylated BRCA1 promoter (9.8 months) than for BRCA1 mutation carriers (39.5 months; P = 0.04). Median overall survival was also significantly shorter for patients with a methylated BRCA1 promoter (35.6 months) than BRCA1 mutation carriers (78.6 months; P = 0.02). The combined methylator phenotype cohort had significantly shorter survival (36.1 months) compared to wild-type BRCA patients (63.3 months; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that methylation of the BRCA1 promoter is associated with poor patient outcome. BRCA1 may be part of a global panel of methylated genes associated with aggressive disease.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcome of ovarian cancerpatients whose tumors contain BRCA1 genes silenced by promoter hypermethylation to patients with germline BRCA1 mutations and to patients with wild-type BRCA genes. METHODS:Ovarian cancers from a hospital-based tumor bank were characterized as having a BRCA1 mutation; or a methylated BRCA1, BRCA1 pseudogene or MLH1 promotor; or a wild-type BRCA gene. Survival of patients with methylated BRCA1 promoters (N = 11) was compared to that of patients with wild-type BRCA genes (N = 30) and BRCA1 mutations (N = 22). A methylator phenotype was defined to include tumors with hypermethylation of BRCA1, hMLH1 and/or dBRCA1 pseudogene promoters (N = 23). RESULTS: All cohorts had comparable clinical factors except for age at diagnosis. Median age of methylated BRCA1 and wild-type BRCApatients was older than BRCA1 mutation carriers (60 and 63 versus 48 years; P = 0.04). The median disease-free interval was significantly shorter for patients with a methylated BRCA1 promoter (9.8 months) than for BRCA1 mutation carriers (39.5 months; P = 0.04). Median overall survival was also significantly shorter for patients with a methylated BRCA1 promoter (35.6 months) than BRCA1 mutation carriers (78.6 months; P = 0.02). The combined methylator phenotype cohort had significantly shorter survival (36.1 months) compared to wild-type BRCApatients (63.3 months; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that methylation of the BRCA1 promoter is associated with poor patient outcome. BRCA1 may be part of a global panel of methylated genes associated with aggressive disease.
Authors: Kelly L Bolton; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Cindy Goh; Siegal Sadetzki; Susan J Ramus; Beth Y Karlan; Diether Lambrechts; Evelyn Despierre; Daniel Barrowdale; Lesley McGuffog; Sue Healey; Douglas F Easton; Olga Sinilnikova; Javier Benítez; María J García; Susan Neuhausen; Mitchell H Gail; Patricia Hartge; Susan Peock; Debra Frost; D Gareth Evans; Rosalind Eeles; Andrew K Godwin; Mary B Daly; Ava Kwong; Edmond S K Ma; Conxi Lázaro; Ignacio Blanco; Marco Montagna; Emma D'Andrea; Maria Ornella Nicoletto; Sharon E Johnatty; Susanne Krüger Kjær; Allan Jensen; Estrid Høgdall; Ellen L Goode; Brooke L Fridley; Jennifer T Loud; Mark H Greene; Phuong L Mai; Angela Chetrit; Flora Lubin; Galit Hirsh-Yechezkel; Gord Glendon; Irene L Andrulis; Amanda E Toland; Leigha Senter; Martin E Gore; Charlie Gourley; Caroline O Michie; Honglin Song; Jonathan Tyrer; Alice S Whittemore; Valerie McGuire; Weiva Sieh; Ulf Kristoffersson; Håkan Olsson; Åke Borg; Douglas A Levine; Linda Steele; Mary S Beattie; Salina Chan; Robert L Nussbaum; Kirsten B Moysich; Jenny Gross; Ilana Cass; Christine Walsh; Andrew J Li; Ronald Leuchter; Ora Gordon; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Simon A Gayther; Stephen J Chanock; Antonis C Antoniou; Paul D P Pharoah Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hao Hong; Hai-Yun Yen; Amy Brockmeyer; Ying Liu; Rajas Chodankar; Malcolm C Pike; Frank Z Stanczyk; Robert Maxson; Louis Dubeau Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-12-22 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Fion L Sung; Yan Cui; Edwin P Hui; Lili Li; Thomas Ks Loh; Qian Tao; Anthony Tc Chan Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Sahar Houshdaran; Sarah Hawley; Chana Palmer; Mihaela Campan; Mari N Olsen; Aviva P Ventura; Beatrice S Knudsen; Charles W Drescher; Nicole D Urban; Patrick O Brown; Peter W Laird Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-02-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elizabeth M Swisher; Rachel M Gonzalez; Toshiyasu Taniguchi; Rochelle L Garcia; Tom Walsh; Barbara A Goff; Piri Welcsh Journal: Mol Cancer Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 27.401