OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate whether wild-type TP53 status in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma is associated with poorer survival. METHODS: Clinical and genomic data of 316 sequenced samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma study were downloaded from TCGA data portal. Association between wild-type TP53 and survival was analyzed with Kaplan Meier method and Cox regression. The diagnosis of high-grade serous carcinomas was evaluated by reviewing pathological reports and high-resolution hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) images from frozen sections. The authenticity of wild-type TP53 in these tumor samples was assessed by analyzing SNP array data with ASCAT algorithm, reverse phase protein array (RPPA) data and RNAseq data. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with high grade serous ovarian carcinomas were identified to have wild-type TP53, which had significantly shorter survival and higher chemoresistance than those with mutated TP53. The authenticity of wild-type TP53 status in these fifteen patients was supported by SNP array, RPPA, and RNAseq data. Except four cases with mixed histology, the classification as high grade serous carcinomas was supported by pathological reports and H&E images. Using RNAseq data, it was found that EDA2R gene, a direct target of wild-type TP53, was highly up-regulated in samples with wild-type TP53 in comparison to samples with either nonsense or missense TP53 mutations. CONCLUSION: Although patients with wild-type TP53 ovarian cancer were rare in the TCGA high grade ovarian serous carcinomas cohort, these patients appeared to have a poorer survival and were more chemoresistant than those with mutated TP53. Differentially expressed genes in these TP53 wild-type tumors may provide insight in the molecular mechanism in chemotherapy resistance.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate whether wild-type TP53 status in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma is associated with poorer survival. METHODS: Clinical and genomic data of 316 sequenced samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma study were downloaded from TCGA data portal. Association between wild-type TP53 and survival was analyzed with Kaplan Meier method and Cox regression. The diagnosis of high-grade serous carcinomas was evaluated by reviewing pathological reports and high-resolution hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) images from frozen sections. The authenticity of wild-type TP53 in these tumor samples was assessed by analyzing SNP array data with ASCAT algorithm, reverse phase protein array (RPPA) data and RNAseq data. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with high grade serous ovarian carcinomas were identified to have wild-type TP53, which had significantly shorter survival and higher chemoresistance than those with mutated TP53. The authenticity of wild-type TP53 status in these fifteen patients was supported by SNP array, RPPA, and RNAseq data. Except four cases with mixed histology, the classification as high grade serous carcinomas was supported by pathological reports and H&E images. Using RNAseq data, it was found that EDA2R gene, a direct target of wild-type TP53, was highly up-regulated in samples with wild-type TP53 in comparison to samples with either nonsense or missense TP53 mutations. CONCLUSION: Although patients with wild-type TP53ovarian cancer were rare in the TCGA high grade ovarian serous carcinomas cohort, these patients appeared to have a poorer survival and were more chemoresistant than those with mutated TP53. Differentially expressed genes in these TP53 wild-type tumors may provide insight in the molecular mechanism in chemotherapy resistance.
Authors: Peter Van Loo; Gro Nilsen; Silje H Nordgard; Hans Kristian Moen Vollan; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Vessela N Kristensen; Ole Christian Lingjærde Journal: Methods Mol Biol Date: 2012
Authors: Anna Yemelyanova; Russell Vang; Malti Kshirsagar; Dan Lu; Morgan A Marks; Ie Ming Shih; Robert J Kurman Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2011-05-06 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Gong Yang; Xue Xiao; Daniel G Rosen; Xi Cheng; Xiaohua Wu; Bin Chang; Guangzhi Liu; Fengxia Xue; Imelda Mercado-Uribe; Paul Chiao; Xiang Du; Jinsong Liu Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-02-21 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: James G Jackson; Vinod Pant; Qin Li; Leslie L Chang; Alfonso Quintás-Cardama; Daniel Garza; Omid Tavana; Peirong Yang; Taghi Manshouri; Yi Li; Adel K El-Naggar; Guillermina Lozano Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Diego A Garcia-Dios; Diether Lambrechts; Lieve Coenegrachts; Ingrid Vandenput; An Capoen; Penelope M Webb; Kaltin Ferguson; Lars A Akslen; Bart Claes; Ignace Vergote; Philippe Moerman; Johan Van Robays; Janusz Marcickiewicz; Helga B Salvesen; Amanda B Spurdle; Frédéric Amant Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2012-12-04 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Ethan Cerami; Jianjiong Gao; Ugur Dogrusoz; Benjamin E Gross; Selcuk Onur Sumer; Bülent Arman Aksoy; Anders Jacobsen; Caitlin J Byrne; Michael L Heuer; Erik Larsson; Yevgeniy Antipin; Boris Reva; Arthur P Goldberg; Chris Sander; Nikolaus Schultz Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Y Yang-Hartwich; M G Soteras; Z P Lin; J Holmberg; N Sumi; V Craveiro; M Liang; E Romanoff; J Bingham; F Garofalo; A Alvero; G Mor Journal: Oncogene Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Russell Vang; Douglas A Levine; Robert A Soslow; Charles Zaloudek; Ie-Ming Shih; Robert J Kurman Journal: Int J Gynecol Pathol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Christopher Breed; Douglas A Hicks; Patricia G Webb; Carly E Galimanis; Benjamin G Bitler; Kian Behbakht; Heidi K Baumgartner Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: David L Masica; Shuli Li; Christopher Douville; Judith Manola; Robert L Ferris; Barbara Burtness; Arlene A Forastiere; Wayne M Koch; Christine H Chung; Rachel Karchin Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2014-08-10 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Pavla Brachova; Samuel R Mueting; Matthew J Carlson; Michael J Goodheart; Anna M Button; Sarah L Mott; Donghai Dai; Kristina W Thiel; Eric J Devor; Kimberly K Leslie Journal: Int J Oncol Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 5.650
Authors: Alba Mota; Juan Carlos Triviño; Alejandro Rojo-Sebastian; Ángel Martínez-Ramírez; Luis Chiva; Antonio González-Martín; Juan F Garcia; Pablo Garcia-Sanz; Gema Moreno-Bueno Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Erin K Crane; Suet-Yan Kwan; Daisy I Izaguirre; Yvonne T M Tsang; Lisa K Mullany; Zhifei Zu; JoAnne S Richards; David M Gershenson; Kwong-Kwok Wong Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mohammad Ezzati; Amer Abdullah; Ahmad Shariftabrizi; June Hou; Michael Kopf; Jennifer K Stedman; Robert Samuelson; Shohreh Shahabi Journal: Int Sch Res Notices Date: 2014-10-29
Authors: Sally M Hunter; Michael S Anglesio; Georgina L Ryland; Raghwa Sharma; Yoke-Eng Chiew; Simone M Rowley; Maria A Doyle; Jason Li; C Blake Gilks; Phillip Moss; Prue E Allan; Andrew N Stephens; David G Huntsman; Anna deFazio; David D Bowtell; Kylie L Gorringe; Ian G Campbell Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2015-11-10