BACKGROUND & AIMS: Synchronous colorectal neoplasias (2 or more primary carcinomas identified in the same patient) are caused by common genetic and environmental factors and can be used to study the field effect. Synchronous colon cancers have not been compared with control solitary cancers in a prospective study. METHODS: We analyzed data collected from 47 patients with synchronous colorectal cancers and 2021 solitary colorectal cancers (controls) in 2 prospective cohort studies. Tumors samples were analyzed for methylation in LINE-1 and 16 CpG islands (CACNA1G, CDKN2A [p16], CRABP1, IGF2, MLH1, NEUROG1, RUNX3, SOCS1, CHFR, HIC1, IGFBP3, MGMT, MINT1, MINT31, p14 [ARF], and WRN); microsatellite instability (MSI); the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP); 18q loss of heterozygosity; KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations; and expression of beta-catenin, p53, p21, p27, cyclin D1, fatty acid synthase, and cyclooxygenase-2. RESULTS: Compared with patients with solitary colorectal cancer, synchronous colorectal cancer patients had reduced overall survival time (log-rank, P = .0048; hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-2.50; P = .0053; multivariate HR, 1.47; 95% CI: 1.00-2.17; P = .049). Compared with solitary tumors, synchronous tumors more frequently contained BRAF mutations (P = .0041), CIMP-high (P = .013), and MSI-high (P = .037). Methylation levels of LINE-1 (Spearman r = 0.82; P = .0072) and CpG island methylation (P < .0001) correlated between synchronous cancer pairs from the same individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Synchronous colorectal cancers had more frequent mutations in BRAF, were more frequently CIMP- and MSI-high, and had a worse prognosis than solitary colorectal cancers. Similar epigenomic and epigenetic events were frequently observed within a synchronous cancer pair, suggesting the presence of a field defect.
BACKGROUND & AIMS:Synchronous colorectal neoplasias (2 or more primary carcinomas identified in the same patient) are caused by common genetic and environmental factors and can be used to study the field effect. Synchronous colon cancers have not been compared with control solitary cancers in a prospective study. METHODS: We analyzed data collected from 47 patients with synchronous colorectal cancers and 2021 solitary colorectal cancers (controls) in 2 prospective cohort studies. Tumors samples were analyzed for methylation in LINE-1 and 16 CpG islands (CACNA1G, CDKN2A [p16], CRABP1, IGF2, MLH1, NEUROG1, RUNX3, SOCS1, CHFR, HIC1, IGFBP3, MGMT, MINT1, MINT31, p14 [ARF], and WRN); microsatellite instability (MSI); the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP); 18q loss of heterozygosity; KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations; and expression of beta-catenin, p53, p21, p27, cyclin D1, fatty acid synthase, and cyclooxygenase-2. RESULTS: Compared with patients with solitary colorectal cancer, synchronous colorectal cancerpatients had reduced overall survival time (log-rank, P = .0048; hazard ratio [HR], 1.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-2.50; P = .0053; multivariate HR, 1.47; 95% CI: 1.00-2.17; P = .049). Compared with solitary tumors, synchronous tumors more frequently contained BRAF mutations (P = .0041), CIMP-high (P = .013), and MSI-high (P = .037). Methylation levels of LINE-1 (Spearman r = 0.82; P = .0072) and CpG island methylation (P < .0001) correlated between synchronous cancer pairs from the same individuals. CONCLUSIONS:Synchronous colorectal cancers had more frequent mutations in BRAF, were more frequently CIMP- and MSI-high, and had a worse prognosis than solitary colorectal cancers. Similar epigenomic and epigenetic events were frequently observed within a synchronous cancer pair, suggesting the presence of a field defect.
Authors: Shuji Ogino; Katsuhiko Nosho; Gregory J Kirkner; Takako Kawasaki; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Massimo Loda; Edward L Giovannucci; Charles S Fuchs Journal: Gut Date: 2008-10-02 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: V Papadopoulos; A Michalopoulos; G Basdanis; K Papapolychroniadis; D Paramythiotis; P Fotiadis; P Berovalis; N Harlaftis Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Wade S Samowitz; Hans Albertsen; Jennifer Herrick; Theodore R Levin; Carol Sweeney; Maureen A Murtaugh; Roger K Wolff; Martha L Slattery Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Lanlan Shen; Yutaka Kondo; Gary L Rosner; Lianchun Xiao; Natalie Supunpong Hernandez; Jill Vilaythong; P Scott Houlihan; Robert S Krouse; Anil R Prasad; Janine G Einspahr; Julie Buckmeier; David S Alberts; Stanley R Hamilton; Jean-Pierre J Issa Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-09-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Shuji Ogino; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Mami Cantor; Mohan Brahmandam; Jeffrey W Clark; Chungdak Namgyal; Takako Kawasaki; Kate Kinsella; Ann L Michelini; Peter C Enzinger; Matthew H Kulke; David P Ryan; Massimo Loda; Charles S Fuchs Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-09-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Wade S Samowitz; Carol Sweeney; Jennifer Herrick; Hans Albertsen; Theodore R Levin; Maureen A Murtaugh; Roger K Wolff; Martha L Slattery Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-07-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Fernando S Velayos; Suk-Hwan Lee; Hongming Qiu; Sharon Dykes; Raymond Yiu; Jonathan P Terdiman; Julio Garcia-Aguilar Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Yuriko Mori; Alexandru V Olaru; Yulan Cheng; Rachana Agarwal; Jian Yang; Delgermaa Luvsanjav; Wayne Yu; Florin M Selaru; Susan Hutfless; Mark Lazarev; John H Kwon; Steven R Brant; Michael R Marohn; David F Hutcheon; Mark D Duncan; Ajay Goel; Stephen J Meltzer Journal: Endocr Relat Cancer Date: 2011-07-04 Impact factor: 5.678
Authors: Noriko Tanaka; Curtis Huttenhower; Katsuhiko Nosho; Yoshifumi Baba; Kaori Shima; John Quackenbush; Kevin M Haigis; Edward Giovannucci; Charles S Fuchs; Shuji Ogino Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: H Kamiyama; K Suzuki; T Maeda; K Koizumi; Y Miyaki; S Okada; Y J Kawamura; J K Samuelsson; S Alonso; F Konishi; M Perucho Journal: Oncogene Date: 2012-02-06 Impact factor: 9.867