BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) historically were grouped with leiomyosarcomas (LMSs) based on their morphologic similarities; however, recently, GIST was established unequivocally as a distinct type of sarcoma based on its molecular features and response to imatinib treatment. METHODS: To gain further insight into the genomic differences between GISTs and LMSs, the authors mapped gene copy number aberrations (CNAs) in 42 GISTs and 30 LMSs and integrated the results with gene expression profiles. RESULTS: Distinct patterns of CNAs were revealed between GISTs and LMSs. Losses in 1p, 14q, 15q, and 22q were significantly more frequent in GISTs than in LMSs (P < .001); whereas losses in chromosomes 10 and 16 and gains in 1q, 14q, and 15q (P < .001) were more common in LMSs. By integrating CNAs with gene expression data and clinical information, the authors identified several clinically relevant CNAs that were prognostic of survival in patients with GIST. Furthermore, GISTs were categorized into 4 groups according to an accumulating pattern of genetic alterations. Many key cellular pathways were expressed differently in the 4 groups, and the patients in each group had increasingly worse prognoses as the extent of genomic alterations increased. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current findings, the authors proposed a new tumor-progression genetic staging system termed genomic instability stage to complement the current prognostic predictive system based on tumor size, mitotic index, and v-kit Hardy-Zuckerman 4 feline sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KIT) mutation.
BACKGROUND:Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) historically were grouped with leiomyosarcomas (LMSs) based on their morphologic similarities; however, recently, GIST was established unequivocally as a distinct type of sarcoma based on its molecular features and response to imatinib treatment. METHODS: To gain further insight into the genomic differences between GISTs and LMSs, the authors mapped gene copy number aberrations (CNAs) in 42 GISTs and 30 LMSs and integrated the results with gene expression profiles. RESULTS: Distinct patterns of CNAs were revealed between GISTs and LMSs. Losses in 1p, 14q, 15q, and 22q were significantly more frequent in GISTs than in LMSs (P < .001); whereas losses in chromosomes 10 and 16 and gains in 1q, 14q, and 15q (P < .001) were more common in LMSs. By integrating CNAs with gene expression data and clinical information, the authors identified several clinically relevant CNAs that were prognostic of survival in patients with GIST. Furthermore, GISTs were categorized into 4 groups according to an accumulating pattern of genetic alterations. Many key cellular pathways were expressed differently in the 4 groups, and the patients in each group had increasingly worse prognoses as the extent of genomic alterations increased. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current findings, the authors proposed a new tumor-progression genetic staging system termed genomic instability stage to complement the current prognostic predictive system based on tumor size, mitotic index, and v-kit Hardy-Zuckerman 4 feline sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KIT) mutation.
Authors: J Derré; R Lagacé; A Nicolas; A Mairal; F Chibon; J M Coindre; P Terrier; X Sastre; A Aurias Journal: Lab Invest Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 5.662
Authors: N Mandahl; C D Fletcher; P Dal Cin; I De Wever; F Mertens; F Mitelman; J Rosai; A Rydholm; R Sciot; G Tallini; H Van Den Berghe; R Vanni; H Willén Journal: Cancer Genet Cytogenet Date: 2000-01-01
Authors: M Otaño-Joos; G Mechtersheimer; S Ohl; K K Wilgenbus; W Scheurlen; T Lehnert; F Willeke; H F Otto; P Lichter; S Joos Journal: Cytogenet Cell Genet Date: 2000
Authors: Roel G W Verhaak; Katherine A Hoadley; Elizabeth Purdom; Victoria Wang; Yuan Qi; Matthew D Wilkerson; C Ryan Miller; Li Ding; Todd Golub; Jill P Mesirov; Gabriele Alexe; Michael Lawrence; Michael O'Kelly; Pablo Tamayo; Barbara A Weir; Stacey Gabriel; Wendy Winckler; Supriya Gupta; Lakshmi Jakkula; Heidi S Feiler; J Graeme Hodgson; C David James; Jann N Sarkaria; Cameron Brennan; Ari Kahn; Paul T Spellman; Richard K Wilson; Terence P Speed; Joe W Gray; Matthew Meyerson; Gad Getz; Charles M Perou; D Neil Hayes Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2010-01-19 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Rubin Wang; Jenny C Titley; Yong-Jie Lu; Brenda M Summersgill; Julia A Bridge; Cyril Fisher; Janet Shipley Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Michael C Heinrich; Christopher L Corless; Anette Duensing; Laura McGreevey; Chang-Jie Chen; Nora Joseph; Samuel Singer; Diana J Griffith; Andrea Haley; Ajia Town; George D Demetri; Christopher D M Fletcher; Jonathan A Fletcher Journal: Science Date: 2003-01-09 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Martee L Hensley; Robert Maki; E Venkatraman; Gennifer Geller; Meghan Lovegren; Carol Aghajanian; Paul Sabbatini; William Tong; Richard Barakat; David R Spriggs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Barry S Taylor; Jordi Barretina; Robert G Maki; Cristina R Antonescu; Samuel Singer; Marc Ladanyi Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2011-07-14 Impact factor: 60.716
Authors: Amaury G Dumont; Yanwen Yang; David Reynoso; Daniela Katz; Jonathan C Trent; Dennis P Hughes Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2012-07-04 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Olaf Karl Klinke; Tuba Mizani; Gouri Baldwin; Brigitte Bancel; Mojgan Devouassoux-Shisheboran; Jean-Yves Scoazec; Pierre-Paul Bringuier; Regina Feederle; Anna Jauch; Katrin Hinderhofer; Philippe Taniere; Henri-Jacques Delecluse Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: F Bertucci; P Finetti; J Ostrowski; W K Kim; H Kim; M A Pantaleo; A Astolfi; M Polkowski; D Birnbaum Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2012-08-28 Impact factor: 7.640