AIM: To evaluate the clinical significance of CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) in plasma and its association with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) progress. METHODS: CIMP status of 108 HCC patients was analyzed using a methylation marker panel in tumor tissues and plasma with methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction. Fifteen samples of non-neoplastic liver tissues and 60 of plasma from healthy persons were examined simultaneously. Examined genes included APC, WIF-1, RUNX-3, DLC-1, SFRP-1, DKK and E-cad. RESULTS: The frequencies of high-level methylation in HCC tissue and plasma were at least 15% for the seven genes: APC, 48/108, 44.44% in tissue and 26/108, 24.07% in plasma; WIF-1, 53/108, 49.07% in tissue and 35/108, 32.41% in plasma; RUNX-3, 52/108, 48.14% in tissue and 42/108, 38.89% in plasma; DLC-1, 38/108, 35.18% in tissue and 23/108, 21.30% in plasma; SFRP-1, 40/108, 37.04% in tissue and 31/108, 28.7% in plasma; DKK, 39/108, 36.1% in tissue and 25/108, 23.14% in plasma; and E-cad, 37/108, 34.3% in tissue and 18/108, 16.67% in plasma. CIMP+ (≥ 3 methylated genes) was detected in 68 (60.2%) tumor tissue samples and 62 (57.4%) plasma samples. CIMP was not detected in non-neoplastic liver tissues or plasma of healthy persons. CIMP status in tumor tissues differed significantly in gender, hepatitis B surface antigen, alpha-fetoprotein, and tumor-node-metastasis stage (P < 0.05). Similar results were obtained with plasma samples (P < 0.05). There was no difference in CIMP status in age, presence of hepatitis C virus antibody, cirrhosis, number of nodes, number of tumors, tumor size, or Edmondson-Steiner stage. A one-year follow-up found that the metastatic rate and recurrence rate in the CIMP+ group were significantly higher than in the CIMP- group as assessed with plasma samples (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Plasma DNA can be a reliable sample source for CIMP analysis. CIMP in plasma may serve as a molecular marker of late-stage and poor-prognosis HCC.
AIM: To evaluate the clinical significance of CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) in plasma and its association with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) progress. METHODS:CIMP status of 108 HCC patients was analyzed using a methylation marker panel in tumor tissues and plasma with methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction. Fifteen samples of non-neoplastic liver tissues and 60 of plasma from healthy persons were examined simultaneously. Examined genes included APC, WIF-1, RUNX-3, DLC-1, SFRP-1, DKK and E-cad. RESULTS: The frequencies of high-level methylation in HCC tissue and plasma were at least 15% for the seven genes: APC, 48/108, 44.44% in tissue and 26/108, 24.07% in plasma; WIF-1, 53/108, 49.07% in tissue and 35/108, 32.41% in plasma; RUNX-3, 52/108, 48.14% in tissue and 42/108, 38.89% in plasma; DLC-1, 38/108, 35.18% in tissue and 23/108, 21.30% in plasma; SFRP-1, 40/108, 37.04% in tissue and 31/108, 28.7% in plasma; DKK, 39/108, 36.1% in tissue and 25/108, 23.14% in plasma; and E-cad, 37/108, 34.3% in tissue and 18/108, 16.67% in plasma. CIMP+ (≥ 3 methylated genes) was detected in 68 (60.2%) tumor tissue samples and 62 (57.4%) plasma samples. CIMP was not detected in non-neoplastic liver tissues or plasma of healthy persons. CIMP status in tumor tissues differed significantly in gender, hepatitis B surface antigen, alpha-fetoprotein, and tumor-node-metastasis stage (P < 0.05). Similar results were obtained with plasma samples (P < 0.05). There was no difference in CIMP status in age, presence of hepatitis C virus antibody, cirrhosis, number of nodes, number of tumors, tumor size, or Edmondson-Steiner stage. A one-year follow-up found that the metastatic rate and recurrence rate in the CIMP+ group were significantly higher than in the CIMP- group as assessed with plasma samples (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Plasma DNA can be a reliable sample source for CIMP analysis. CIMP in plasma may serve as a molecular marker of late-stage and poor-prognosis HCC.
Entities:
Keywords:
CpG island methylator phenotype; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Methylation; Plasma; Prognosis
Authors: C A Eads; R V Lord; K Wickramasinghe; T I Long; S K Kurumboor; L Bernstein; J H Peters; S R DeMeester; T R DeMeester; K A Skinner; P W Laird Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-04-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Malcolm V Brock; Mingzhou Gou; Yoshimitsu Akiyama; Alison Muller; Tsung-Teh Wu; Elizabeth Montgomery; Mari Deasel; Paul Germonpré; Lewis Rubinson; Richard F Heitmiller; Stephen C Yang; Arlene A Forastiere; Stephen B Baylin; James G Herman Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-08-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Katherine E Varley; Jason Gertz; Kevin M Bowling; Stephanie L Parker; Timothy E Reddy; Florencia Pauli-Behn; Marie K Cross; Brian A Williams; John A Stamatoyannopoulos; Gregory E Crawford; Devin M Absher; Barbara J Wold; Richard M Myers Journal: Genome Res Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Steffen Zopf; Matthias Ocker; Daniel Neureiter; Beate Alinger; Susanne Gahr; Markus F Neurath; Pietro Di Fazio Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2012-09-03 Impact factor: 4.430