BACKGROUND: Identifying genomic regions that are commonly deleted or gained in neoplastic cells is an important approach to identify tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes. Studies in the last two decades have identified a number of common DNA copy number alterations in prostate cancer. However, because of various sample sizes, diverse tumor types and sources, as well as a variety of detection methods with various sensitivities and resolutions, it is difficult to summarize and fully interpret the overall results. METHODS: We performed a combined analysis of all published comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) studies of prostate cancer and estimated the frequency of alterations across the genome for all tumors, as well as in advanced and localized tumors separately. A total of 41 studies examining 872 cancers were included in this study. RESULTS: The frequency of deletions and gains were estimated in all tumors, as well as in advanced and localized tumors. Eight deleted and five gained regions were found in more than 10% of the prostate tumors. An additional six regions were commonly deleted and seven were commonly gained in advanced tumors. While 8p was the most common location of deletion, occurring in about a third of all tumors and about half of advanced tumors, 8q was the most commonly gained region, affecting about a quarter of all tumors and about half of all advanced tumors. CONCLUSIONS: The large number of tumors examined in this combined analysis provides better estimates of the frequency of specific alterations in the prostate cancer cell genome, and offers important clues for prioritizing efforts to identify tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes in these altered regions. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Identifying genomic regions that are commonly deleted or gained in neoplastic cells is an important approach to identify tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes. Studies in the last two decades have identified a number of common DNA copy number alterations in prostate cancer. However, because of various sample sizes, diverse tumor types and sources, as well as a variety of detection methods with various sensitivities and resolutions, it is difficult to summarize and fully interpret the overall results. METHODS: We performed a combined analysis of all published comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) studies of prostate cancer and estimated the frequency of alterations across the genome for all tumors, as well as in advanced and localized tumors separately. A total of 41 studies examining 872 cancers were included in this study. RESULTS: The frequency of deletions and gains were estimated in all tumors, as well as in advanced and localized tumors. Eight deleted and five gained regions were found in more than 10% of the prostate tumors. An additional six regions were commonly deleted and seven were commonly gained in advanced tumors. While 8p was the most common location of deletion, occurring in about a third of all tumors and about half of advanced tumors, 8q was the most commonly gained region, affecting about a quarter of all tumors and about half of all advanced tumors. CONCLUSIONS: The large number of tumors examined in this combined analysis provides better estimates of the frequency of specific alterations in the prostate cancer cell genome, and offers important clues for prioritizing efforts to identify tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes in these altered regions. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Bora Gurel; Tsuyoshi Iwata; Cheryl M Koh; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian; William G Nelson; Angelo M De Marzo Journal: Adv Anat Pathol Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 3.875
Authors: Daniella Bianchi-Frias; Ryan Basom; Jeffrey J Delrow; Ilsa M Coleman; Olga Dakhova; Xiaoyu Qu; Min Fang; Omar E Franco; Nolan G Ericson; Jason H Bielas; Simon W Hayward; Lawrence True; Colm Morrissey; Lisha Brown; Neil A Bhowmick; David Rowley; Michael Ittmann; Peter S Nelson Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Jessica K Simmons; Wessel P Dirksen; Blake E Hildreth; Carlee Dorr; Christina Williams; Rachael Thomas; Matthew Breen; Ramiro E Toribio; Thomas J Rosol Journal: Prostate Date: 2014-07-07 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Sarah M Mense; Douglas Barrows; Cindy Hodakoski; Nicole Steinbach; David Schoenfeld; William Su; Benjamin D Hopkins; Tao Su; Barry Fine; Hanina Hibshoosh; Ramon Parsons Journal: Sci Signal Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 8.192
Authors: Ilona N Holcomb; Janet M Young; Ilsa M Coleman; Keyan Salari; Douglas I Grove; Li Hsu; Lawrence D True; Martine P Roudier; Colm M Morrissey; Celestia S Higano; Peter S Nelson; Robert L Vessella; Barbara J Trask Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-09-22 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Joke Beuten; Jonathan A L Gelfond; Jennifer L Franke; Stacey Shook; Teresa L Johnson-Pais; Ian M Thompson; Robin J Leach Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-01-19 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Wennuan Liu; Chunmei Carol Xie; Yi Zhu; Tao Li; Jishan Sun; Yu Cheng; Charles M Ewing; Sue Dalrymple; Aubrey R Turner; Jielin Sun; John T Isaacs; Bao-Li Chang; Siqun Lilly Zheng; William B Isaacs; Jianfeng Xu Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 5.715