| Literature DB >> 22967087 |
Ingiridur Skirnisdottir1, Markus Mayrhofer, Maria Rydåker, Helena Akerud, Anders Isaksson.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is a heterogeneous disease and prognosis for apparently similar cases of ovarian cancer varies. Recurrence of the disease in early stage (FIGO-stages I-II) serous ovarian cancer results in survival that is comparable to those with recurrent advanced-stage disease. The aim of this study was to investigate if there are specific genomic aberrations that may explain recurrence and clinical outcome.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22967087 PMCID: PMC3495882 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-12-407
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Patient characteristics (N = 37)
| FIGO-stage | ||
| IA | 7 | (18.9) |
| IB | 3 | (8.1) |
| IC | 21 | (56.8) |
| II | 6 | (16.2) |
| FIGO-grade | ||
| Grade 1 | 11 | (29.7) |
| Grade 2 | 11 | (29.7) |
| Grade 3 | 15 | (40.6) |
| Status of the recurrent disease | ||
| Recurrent disease | 13 | (35.1) |
| Without recurrent disease | 24 | (64.9) |
Figure 1Allele-specific copy number analysis in early stage serous ovarian cancers across the genome. Frequency of aberrations with different total copy number and LOH in tumors with recurrent disease (A) and no recurrence (C). Individual total copy number and LOH for each tumor with recurrent disease (B) and no recurrence (D).
Figure 2Differences in frequency of tumors with aberrations between tumor with and without recurrence across the genome. Gains (total copy number 3 and higher) (A). Total copy number 1 (B) and LOH irrespective of total copy number (C).
Clinical, pathological and genomic features vs recurrent disease (N = 37)
| Age(mean) | 64.0 years | 61.8 years | p = 0.612 (t-test) |
| Tumor grade | |||
| G1 + G2 | 8.(62) | 14 (58) | |
| G3 | 5 (38) | 10 (42) | p = 0.849 (chi-2) |
| FIGO stage | | | |
| IA-IC | 8 (61) | 23 (96) | |
| II | 5 (42) | 1 (4) | p = 0.007 (chi-2) |
| Staging | |||
| adequate | 1 (8) | 6 (25) | |
| not adequate | 12 (92) | 18 (75) | p = 0.199 (chi-2) |
| LOH detected | |||
| at19q (51-56Mbp) | 8 (62) | 3 (12) | |
| No. LOH at 19q | 5 (38) | 21 (88) | p = 0.002 (chi 2) |
| (51-56Mbp) detected | | | |
| TP53 status | |||
| positive | 8 (62) | 4 (17) | |
| negative | 5 (38) | 20 (83) | p = 0.005 (chi-2) |
Figure 3Patients with LOH at chromosome 19q (51-56 Mbp) are associated with shorter survival. Kaplan-Meier plot indicates significant differences in overall survival between patientis with and without LOH on chromosome 19q, Log-rank test =12.0; (p < 0.009).
Multivariate Cox regression analysis with disease-free survival as endpoint (N = 37)
| Age | 1.06 | 0.988-1.13 | 0.105 |
| Stage (I vs. II) | 2.65 | 0.532-13.2 | 0.234 |
| Grade* | 1.26 | 0.2386.64 | 0.786 |
| Staging** | 0.527 | 0.057-4.85 | 0.572 |
| LOH 19q*** | 4.47 | 1.071-18.6 | 0.039 |
* G1 or G2 vs. G3.
** Staging surgery adequately performed vs. not performed.
*** LOH at 19q detected vs. not detected.
HR Hazard Rate.
Multivariate Cox regression analysis with disease-free survival as endpoint (N = 37)
| Age | 1.05 | 0.988-1.13 | 0.138 |
| Stage (I vs. II) | 3.98 | 0.939-16.9 | 0.060 |
| Grade * | 0.746 | 0.185-3.00 | 0.680 |
| Staging ** | 0.492 | 0.050-4.78 | 0.541 |
| TP53 status *** | 2.92 | 0.888-9.64 | 0.077 |
* G1 or G2 vs. G3.
** Staging surgery adequately performed vs. not performed.
*** TP53 immunohistological staining detected vs. not detected.
HR = Hazard Rate.
Logistic regression analysis with recurrent disease as endpoint (N = 37)
| Age | 1.06 | 0.148-820 | 0.264 |
| Stage (I vs. II) | 15.3 | 0.436-537 | 0.127 |
| Grade * | 0.313 | 0.024-4.06 | 0.363 |
| Staging ** | 0.197 | 0.007-5.34 | 0.323 |
| LOH 19q*** | 19.0 | 1.39-261 | 0.028 |
* G1 or G2 vs. G3.
** Staging surgery adequately performed vs. not performed.
*** LOH at 19q detected vs. not detected.
OR Odds Ratio.