Literature DB >> 22427574

Higher percentage of FISH-determined monosomy 3 and 8q amplification in uveal melanoma cells relate to poor patient prognosis.

Thomas van den Bosch1, Jackelien G M van Beek, Jolanda Vaarwater, Robert M Verdijk, Nicole C Naus, Dion Paridaens, Annelies de Klein, Emine Kiliç.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the relation between patient survival and incrementally increasing percentages of fluorescence in situ hybridization-determined complete loss of chromosome 3 (monosomy 3) and gain of chromosome 8q in primary uveal melanoma cells.
METHODS: Clinicopathological factors were related to disease-free survival. Fluorescence in situ hybridization was performed using probes on chromosomes 1, 3, 6, and 8. The percentages of UM cells with monosomy 3 or chromosome 8q gain were classified in groups with incrementally increasing percentages and related to disease-free survival. Correlations between clinical factors and cytogenetic aberrations were also analyzed.
RESULTS: Two-hundred twenty choroidal and ciliary body melanomas were analyzed. The following proved to be significant predictors of survival in univariate analysis: older patient age (P = 0.003); large tumor diameter (P < 0.001); mixed cell type (P = 0.001); presence of closed microvascular loops (P < 0.001); loss of chromosome 1p (P = 0.006); monosomy 3 (P < 0.001); gain of 6p (P < 0.001); and gain of chromosome 8q (P < 0.001). Multivariate Cox analysis displayed monosomy 3 (Hazard ratio [HR] 2.83, P = 0.002) and gain of chromosome 8q (HR 3.13, P = 0.002) as the most important independent prognostic factors of poor survival, followed by older patient age (HR 1.02, P = 0.017). Increasing percentages of monosomy 3 and gain of chromosome 8q in tumor cells showed a correlation with worse prognosis (Log-rank test 49.9 and 40.4, both P < 0.001) and increased number of additional copies of 8q correlated with shorter disease-free interval (Log-rank test 45.7, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: A high percentage monosomy 3 and chromosome 8q gain in primary UM cells showed a strong relation with poor disease-free survival compared with low percentage aberrations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22427574     DOI: 10.1167/iovs.11-8697

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci        ISSN: 0146-0404            Impact factor:   4.799


  27 in total

1.  Tumor-height regression rate after brachytherapy between choroidal melanoma gene expression profile classes: effect of controlling for tumor height.

Authors:  Kishan Gupta; Colin A McCannel; Mitchell Kamrava; James Lamb; Robert D Almanzor; Tara A McCannel
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-02-24       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Prognostic parameters in uveal melanoma and their association with BAP1 expression.

Authors:  T Huibertus van Essen; Sake I van Pelt; Mieke Versluis; Inge H G Bronkhorst; Sjoerd G van Duinen; Marina Marinkovic; Wilma G M Kroes; Claudia A L Ruivenkamp; Shruti Shukla; Annelies de Klein; Emine Kiliç; J William Harbour; Gregorius P M Luyten; Pieter A van der Velden; Rob M Verdijk; Martine J Jager
Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 4.638

Review 3.  Locoregional Therapies for the Treatment of Uveal Melanoma Hepatic Metastases.

Authors:  Carin F Gonsalves; Robert D Adamo; David J Eschelman
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2020-12-11       Impact factor: 1.513

4.  Combined mutation and copy-number variation detection by targeted next-generation sequencing in uveal melanoma.

Authors:  Kyra N Smit; Natasha M van Poppelen; Jolanda Vaarwater; Robert Verdijk; Ronald van Marion; Helen Kalirai; Sarah E Coupland; Sophie Thornton; Neil Farquhar; Hendrikus-Jan Dubbink; Dion Paridaens; Annelies de Klein; Emine Kiliç
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2018-01-12       Impact factor: 7.842

5.  Uveal Melanoma Regression after Brachytherapy: Relationship with Chromosome 3 Monosomy Status.

Authors:  Sachin M Salvi; Hassan A Aziz; Suhail Dar; Nakul Singh; Brandy Hayden-Loreck; Arun D Singh
Journal:  Ocul Oncol Pathol       Date:  2016-10-29

Review 6.  Genetics of metastasis: melanoma and other cancers.

Authors:  Noel Turner; Olivia Ware; Marcus Bosenberg
Journal:  Clin Exp Metastasis       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 5.150

Review 7.  Transhepatic therapies for metastatic uveal melanoma.

Authors:  David J Eschelman; Carin F Gonsalves; Takami Sato
Journal:  Semin Intervent Radiol       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 1.513

8.  Integrative Analysis Identifies Four Molecular and Clinical Subsets in Uveal Melanoma.

Authors:  A Gordon Robertson; Juliann Shih; Christina Yau; Ewan A Gibb; Junna Oba; Karen L Mungall; Julian M Hess; Vladislav Uzunangelov; Vonn Walter; Ludmila Danilova; Tara M Lichtenberg; Melanie Kucherlapati; Patrick K Kimes; Ming Tang; Alexander Penson; Ozgun Babur; Rehan Akbani; Christopher A Bristow; Katherine A Hoadley; Lisa Iype; Matthew T Chang; Andrew D Cherniack; Christopher Benz; Gordon B Mills; Roel G W Verhaak; Klaus G Griewank; Ina Felau; Jean C Zenklusen; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Lynn Schoenfield; Alexander J Lazar; Mohamed H Abdel-Rahman; Sergio Roman-Roman; Marc-Henri Stern; Colleen M Cebulla; Michelle D Williams; Martine J Jager; Sarah E Coupland; Bita Esmaeli; Cyriac Kandoth; Scott E Woodman
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2017-08-14       Impact factor: 31.743

Review 9.  Genetic determinants of uveal melanoma.

Authors:  Jasbir Kaur; Manzoor Ahmad Malik; Rishabh Gulati; Shorya Vardhan Azad; Sandeep Goswami
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-10-09

10.  Identification of prognostic alternative splicing signatures in uveal melanoma.

Authors:  Xinyi Xie; Xinhua Zheng; Tianhua Xie; Jiping Cai; Yong Yao
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 2.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.