PURPOSE: The MDM2 and HMGA2 genes are consistently amplified in well-differentiated/dedifferentiated liposarcomas (WDLPS/DDLPS) whereas CDK4 is frequently but not always amplified in these tumors. Our goal was to determine whether the absence of CDK4 amplification was (a) correlated to a specific clinico-histopathologic profile; and (b) compensated by another genomic anomaly involving the CCND1/CDK4/P16INK4a/RB1/E2F pathway. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We compared the clinical characteristics of a series of 143 WDLPS/DDLPS with amplification of both MDM2 and CDK4 (MDM2+/CDK4+) to a series of 45 WDLPS/DDLPS with MDM2 amplification and no CDK4 amplification (MDM2+/CDK4-). We used fluorescence in situ hybridization, real time quantitative reverse transcription PCR, and immunohistochemistry to explore the status of CCND1, P16INK4a, P14ARF, and RB1. RESULTS: We found that MDM2+/CDK4- WDLPS/DDLPS represent a distinct clinical subgroup with favorable prognostic features, including low-grade lipoma-like histology, peripheral location, and lower rate of recurrence. By using fluorescence in situ hybridization, we found that genomic aberrations expected to be alternative mechanisms for compensating the lack of CDK4 amplification, such as RB1 and CDKN2A deletions or CCND1 amplification, were very uncommon. In contrast, by using real time quantitative reverse transcription PCR and immunohistochemistry, we observed that overexpression of P16INK4a (and P14ARF) and CCND1 and reduced expression of RB1 were very frequent, independently of the CDK4 status. CONCLUSIONS: Our results underscore the complex coordinated regulation of the RB and p53 growth-control pathways in WDLPS/DDLPS. Because the absence of CDK4 amplification is not specifically counterbalanced by a genomic alteration of the CCND1/CDK4/P16INK4a/RB1/E2F pathway, CDK4 amplification may only represent a "MDM2-HMGA2-helper" in WDLPS/DDLPS tumorigenesis.
PURPOSE: The MDM2 and HMGA2 genes are consistently amplified in well-differentiated/dedifferentiated liposarcomas (WDLPS/DDLPS) whereas CDK4 is frequently but not always amplified in these tumors. Our goal was to determine whether the absence of CDK4 amplification was (a) correlated to a specific clinico-histopathologic profile; and (b) compensated by another genomic anomaly involving the CCND1/CDK4/P16INK4a/RB1/E2F pathway. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We compared the clinical characteristics of a series of 143 WDLPS/DDLPS with amplification of both MDM2 and CDK4 (MDM2+/CDK4+) to a series of 45 WDLPS/DDLPS with MDM2 amplification and no CDK4 amplification (MDM2+/CDK4-). We used fluorescence in situ hybridization, real time quantitative reverse transcription PCR, and immunohistochemistry to explore the status of CCND1, P16INK4a, P14ARF, and RB1. RESULTS: We found that MDM2+/CDK4- WDLPS/DDLPS represent a distinct clinical subgroup with favorable prognostic features, including low-grade lipoma-like histology, peripheral location, and lower rate of recurrence. By using fluorescence in situ hybridization, we found that genomic aberrations expected to be alternative mechanisms for compensating the lack of CDK4 amplification, such as RB1 and CDKN2A deletions or CCND1 amplification, were very uncommon. In contrast, by using real time quantitative reverse transcription PCR and immunohistochemistry, we observed that overexpression of P16INK4a (and P14ARF) and CCND1 and reduced expression of RB1 were very frequent, independently of the CDK4 status. CONCLUSIONS: Our results underscore the complex coordinated regulation of the RB and p53 growth-control pathways in WDLPS/DDLPS. Because the absence of CDK4 amplification is not specifically counterbalanced by a genomic alteration of the CCND1/CDK4/P16INK4a/RB1/E2F pathway, CDK4 amplification may only represent a "MDM2-HMGA2-helper" in WDLPS/DDLPS tumorigenesis.
Authors: Mary E Olanich; Wenyue Sun; Stephen M Hewitt; Zied Abdullaev; Svetlana D Pack; Frederic G Barr Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jason J Luke; David R D'Adamo; Mark A Dickson; Mary Louise Keohan; Richard D Carvajal; Robert G Maki; Elisa de Stanchina; Elgilda Musi; Samuel Singer; Gary K Schwartz Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Yuanzhi Lu; Yongsheng Wu; Xiaoling Feng; Rulong Shen; Jing H Wang; Mohammad Fallahi; Weimin Li; Chunying Yang; William Hankey; Weiqiang Zhao; Ramesh K Ganju; Ming O Li; John L Cleveland; Xianghong Zou Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2014-03-10 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Kate Lynn J Bill; Lucia Casadei; Bethany C Prudner; Hans Iwenofu; Anne M Strohecker; Raphael E Pollock Journal: Cell Mol Life Sci Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 9.261