Literature DB >> 21270108

Paradoxical relationship between chromosomal instability and survival outcome in cancer.

Nicolai J Birkbak1, Aron C Eklund, Qiyuan Li, Sarah E McClelland, David Endesfelder, Patrick Tan, Iain B Tan, Andrea L Richardson, Zoltan Szallasi, Charles Swanton.   

Abstract

Chromosomal instability (CIN) is associated with poor prognosis in human cancer. However, in certain animal tumor models elevated CIN negatively impacts upon organism fitness, and is poorly tolerated by cancer cells. To better understand this seemingly contradictory relationship between CIN and cancer cell biological fitness and its relationship with clinical outcome, we applied the CIN70 expression signature, which correlates with DNA-based measures of structural chromosomal complexity and numerical CIN in vivo, to gene expression profiles of 2,125 breast tumors from 13 published cohorts. Tumors with extreme CIN, defined as the highest quartile CIN70 score, were predominantly of the estrogen receptor negative (ER(-)), basal-like phenotype and displayed the highest chromosomal structural complexity and chromosomal numerical instability. We found that the extreme CIN/ER(-) tumors were associated with improved prognosis relative to tumors with intermediate CIN70 scores in the third quartile. We also observed this paradoxical relationship between CIN and prognosis in ovarian, gastric, and non-small cell lung cancer, with poorest outcome in tumors with intermediate, rather than extreme, CIN70 scores. These results suggest a nonmonotonic relationship between gene signature expression and HR for survival outcome, which may explain the difficulties encountered in the identification of prognostic expression signatures in ER(-) breast cancer. Furthermore, the data are consistent with the intolerance of excessive CIN in carcinomas and provide a plausible strategy to define distinct prognostic patient cohorts with ER(-) breast cancer. Inclusion of a surrogate measurement of CIN may improve cancer risk stratification and future therapeutic approaches. ©2011 AACR

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21270108      PMCID: PMC3096721          DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-3667

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Res        ISSN: 0008-5472            Impact factor:   12.701


  34 in total

Review 1.  Association between chromosomal instability and prognosis in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  A Walther; R Houlston; I Tomlinson
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2008-03-25       Impact factor: 23.059

2.  Gene-expression profiles to predict distant metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer.

Authors:  Yixin Wang; Jan G M Klijn; Yi Zhang; Anieta M Sieuwerts; Maxime P Look; Fei Yang; Dmitri Talantov; Mieke Timmermans; Marion E Meijer-van Gelder; Jack Yu; Tim Jatkoe; Els M J J Berns; David Atkins; John A Foekens
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2005 Feb 19-25       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Oncogenic pathway signatures in human cancers as a guide to targeted therapies.

Authors:  Andrea H Bild; Guang Yao; Jeffrey T Chang; Quanli Wang; Anil Potti; Dawn Chasse; Mary-Beth Joshi; David Harpole; Johnathan M Lancaster; Andrew Berchuck; John A Olson; Jeffrey R Marks; Holly K Dressman; Mike West; Joseph R Nevins
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-11-06       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Whole chromosome instability caused by Bub1 insufficiency drives tumorigenesis through tumor suppressor gene loss of heterozygosity.

Authors:  Darren J Baker; Fang Jin; Karthik B Jeganathan; Jan M van Deursen
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2009-12-08       Impact factor: 31.743

5.  Biological processes associated with breast cancer clinical outcome depend on the molecular subtypes.

Authors:  Christine Desmedt; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Pratyaksha Wirapati; Marc Buyse; Denis Larsimont; Gianluca Bontempi; Mauro Delorenzi; Martine Piccart; Christos Sotiriou
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 6.  Mitotic chromosomal instability and cancer: mouse modelling of the human disease.

Authors:  Juan-Manuel Schvartzman; Rocio Sotillo; Robert Benezra
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 60.716

7.  The gene expression signature of genomic instability in breast cancer is an independent predictor of clinical outcome.

Authors:  Jens K Habermann; Jana Doering; Sampsa Hautaniemi; Uwe J Roblick; Nana K Bündgen; Daniel Nicorici; Ulrike Kronenwett; Shruti Rathnagiriswaran; Rama K R Mettu; Yan Ma; Stefan Krüger; Hans-Peter Bruch; Gert Auer; Nancy L Guo; Thomas Ried
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2009-04-01       Impact factor: 7.396

8.  Lethality to human cancer cells through massive chromosome loss by inhibition of the mitotic checkpoint.

Authors:  Geert J P L Kops; Daniel R Foltz; Don W Cleveland
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2004-05-24       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Aneuploidy affects proliferation and spontaneous immortalization in mammalian cells.

Authors:  Bret R Williams; Vineet R Prabhu; Karen E Hunter; Christina M Glazier; Charles A Whittaker; David E Housman; Angelika Amon
Journal:  Science       Date:  2008-10-31       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  High-resolution aCGH and expression profiling identifies a novel genomic subtype of ER negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Suet F Chin; Andrew E Teschendorff; John C Marioni; Yanzhong Wang; Nuno L Barbosa-Morais; Natalie P Thorne; Jose L Costa; Sarah E Pinder; Mark A van de Wiel; Andrew R Green; Ian O Ellis; Peggy L Porter; Simon Tavaré; James D Brenton; Bauke Ylstra; Carlos Caldas
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 13.583

View more
  151 in total

Review 1.  How to be good at being bad: centrosome amplification and mitotic propensity drive intratumoral heterogeneity.

Authors:  Padmashree C G Rida; Guilherme Cantuaria; Michelle D Reid; Omer Kucuk; Ritu Aneja
Journal:  Cancer Metastasis Rev       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 9.264

2.  Chromosomal instability upregulates interferon in acute myeloid leukemia.

Authors:  Ning Jin; Robert F Lera; Rachel E Yan; Fen Guo; Kim Oxendine; Vanessa L Horner; Yang Hu; Jun Wan; Ryan J Mattison; Beth A Weaver; Mark E Burkard
Journal:  Genes Chromosomes Cancer       Date:  2020-07-18       Impact factor: 5.006

Review 3.  Genetic and non-genetic clonal diversity in cancer evolution.

Authors:  James R M Black; Nicholas McGranahan
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2021-03-16       Impact factor: 60.716

4.  Impact of deleterious passenger mutations on cancer progression.

Authors:  Christopher D McFarland; Kirill S Korolev; Gregory V Kryukov; Shamil R Sunyaev; Leonid A Mirny
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-02-06       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Selective inhibition of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma cell growth by the mitotic MPS1 kinase inhibitor NMS-P715.

Authors:  Roger B Slee; Brenda R Grimes; Ruchi Bansal; Jesse Gore; Corinne Blackburn; Lyndsey Brown; Rachel Gasaway; Jaesik Jeong; Jose Victorino; Keith L March; Riccardo Colombo; Brittney-Shea Herbert; Murray Korc
Journal:  Mol Cancer Ther       Date:  2013-11-26       Impact factor: 6.261

6.  GPR124 regulates microtubule assembly, mitotic progression, and glioblastoma cell proliferation.

Authors:  Allison E Cherry; Juan Jesus Vicente; Cong Xu; Richard S Morrison; Shao-En Ong; Linda Wordeman; Nephi Stella
Journal:  Glia       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 7.452

7.  Chromosomal heterogeneity and instability characterize pediatric medulloblastoma cell lines and affect neoplastic phenotype.

Authors:  Angel Mauricio Castro-Gamero; Kleiton Silva Borges; Regia Caroline Lira; Augusto Faria Andrade; Paola Fernanda Fedatto; Gustavo Alencastro Veiga Cruzeiro; Ricardo Bonfim Silva; Aparecida Maria Fontes; Elvis Terci Valera; Michael Bobola; Carlos Alberto Scrideli; Luiz Gonzaga Tone
Journal:  Cytotechnology       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 2.058

8.  A transcriptional and metabolic signature of primary aneuploidy is present in chromosomally unstable cancer cells and informs clinical prognosis.

Authors:  Jason M Sheltzer
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2013-09-16       Impact factor: 12.701

Review 9.  Genomic Instability in Cancer: Teetering on the Limit of Tolerance.

Authors:  Noemi Andor; Carlo C Maley; Hanlee P Ji
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 12.701

10.  Integrating Mathematical Modeling with High-Throughput Imaging Explains How Polyploid Populations Behave in Nutrient-Sparse Environments.

Authors:  Gregory J Kimmel; Mark Dane; Laura M Heiser; Philipp M Altrock; Noemi Andor
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 12.701

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.