PURPOSE: MYCN amplification is an important therapy-stratifying marker in neuroblastoma. Fluorescence in situ hybridization with signal detection on the single-cell level allows a critical judgement of MYCN intratumoral heterogeneity. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The MYCN status was investigated by fluorescence in situ hybridization at diagnosis and relapse. Heterogeneity was defined as the simultaneous presence of amplified cells (>/=5 cells per slide) and nonamplified cells within one tumor or sequential change of the amplification status during the course of the disease. Likewise, heterogeneity can be detected between primary tumor and metastasis. RESULTS: From 1,341 patients analyzed, 1,071 showed no amplification, 250 showed homogeneous amplification, and 20 patients showed MYCN heterogeneity. Of the patients with heterogeneity, 12 of 20 had clusters of MYCN amplifications, 3 of 20 had amplified single cells, 3 of 20 showed MYCN amplifications in the bone marrow but not in the primary tumor, and 2 of 20 acquired MYCN amplification during the course of the disease. All stage 4 patients were treated according to high-risk protocols; 7 of 8 later progressed. Four patients with localized disease were treated according to high-risk protocol because of MYCN-amplified clusters; 1 of 4 later progressed. One patient treated with mild chemotherapy experienced progression. Seven patients with localized/4S disease underwent no chemotherapy: 4 of 5 patients with MYCN heterogeneity at diagnosis remained disease-free, and 1 of 5 experienced local progression. Two patients had normal MYCN status at diagnosis but acquired MYCN amplification during the course of the disease. CONCLUSION: MYCN heterogeneity is rare. Our results suggest that small amounts of MYCN-amplified cells are not correlated to adverse outcomes. More patients with heterogeneity are warranted to clarify the role of MYCN heterogeneity for risk classification.
PURPOSE:MYCN amplification is an important therapy-stratifying marker in neuroblastoma. Fluorescence in situ hybridization with signal detection on the single-cell level allows a critical judgement of MYCN intratumoral heterogeneity. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The MYCN status was investigated by fluorescence in situ hybridization at diagnosis and relapse. Heterogeneity was defined as the simultaneous presence of amplified cells (>/=5 cells per slide) and nonamplified cells within one tumor or sequential change of the amplification status during the course of the disease. Likewise, heterogeneity can be detected between primary tumor and metastasis. RESULTS: From 1,341 patients analyzed, 1,071 showed no amplification, 250 showed homogeneous amplification, and 20 patients showed MYCN heterogeneity. Of the patients with heterogeneity, 12 of 20 had clusters of MYCN amplifications, 3 of 20 had amplified single cells, 3 of 20 showed MYCN amplifications in the bone marrow but not in the primary tumor, and 2 of 20 acquired MYCN amplification during the course of the disease. All stage 4 patients were treated according to high-risk protocols; 7 of 8 later progressed. Four patients with localized disease were treated according to high-risk protocol because of MYCN-amplified clusters; 1 of 4 later progressed. One patient treated with mild chemotherapy experienced progression. Seven patients with localized/4S disease underwent no chemotherapy: 4 of 5 patients with MYCN heterogeneity at diagnosis remained disease-free, and 1 of 5 experienced local progression. Two patients had normal MYCN status at diagnosis but acquired MYCN amplification during the course of the disease. CONCLUSION:MYCN heterogeneity is rare. Our results suggest that small amounts of MYCN-amplified cells are not correlated to adverse outcomes. More patients with heterogeneity are warranted to clarify the role of MYCN heterogeneity for risk classification.
Authors: Sheri L Spunt; Sara O Vargas; Cheryl M Coffin; Stephen X Skapek; David M Parham; Joan Darling; Douglas S Hawkins; Charles Keller Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M Khalid Khan Niazi; Jonathan H Chung; Katherine J Heaton-Johnson; Daniel Martinez; Raquel Castellanos; Meredith S Irwin; Stephen R Master; Bruce R Pawel; Metin N Gurcan; Daniel A Weiser Journal: Pediatr Dev Pathol Date: 2017-04-18
Authors: Kevin Campbell; Arlene Naranjo; Emily Hibbitts; Julie M Gastier-Foster; Rochelle Bagatell; Meredith S Irwin; Hiroyuki Shimada; Michael Hogarty; Julie R Park; Steven G DuBois Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2020-05-31 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Mark A Applebaum; Erin K Barr; Jason Karpus; Diana C West-Szymanski; Meritxell Oliva; Elizabeth A Sokol; Sheng Zhang; Zhou Zhang; Wei Zhang; Alexandre Chlenski; Helen R Salwen; Emma Wilkinson; Marija Dobratic; Robert L Grossman; Lucy A Godley; Barbara E Stranger; Chuan He; Susan L Cohn Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-12-18 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Marta Jeison; Shifra Ash; Gili Halevy-Berko; Jacques Mardoukh; Drorit Luria; Smadar Avigad; Galina Feinberg-Gorenshtein; Yacov Goshen; Gabriel Hertzel; Joseph Kapelushnik; Ayelet Ben Barak; Dina Attias; Ran Steinberg; Jerry Stein; Batia Stark; Isaac Yaniv Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Alexander Schramm; Johannes Köster; Yassen Assenov; Kristina Althoff; Martin Peifer; Ellen Mahlow; Andrea Odersky; Daniela Beisser; Corinna Ernst; Anton G Henssen; Harald Stephan; Christopher Schröder; Lukas Heukamp; Anne Engesser; Yvonne Kahlert; Jessica Theissen; Barbara Hero; Frederik Roels; Janine Altmüller; Peter Nürnberg; Kathy Astrahantseff; Christian Gloeckner; Katleen De Preter; Christoph Plass; Sangkyun Lee; Holger N Lode; Kai-Oliver Henrich; Moritz Gartlgruber; Frank Speleman; Peter Schmezer; Frank Westermann; Sven Rahmann; Matthias Fischer; Angelika Eggert; Johannes H Schulte Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: A P Berbegall; E Villamón; M Piqueras; I Tadeo; A Djos; P F Ambros; T Martinsson; I M Ambros; A Cañete; V Castel; S Navarro; R Noguera Journal: Oncogene Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 9.867