BACKGROUND: The TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours (TNM) staging system is the primary means of determining a prognosis for gastric adenocarcinoma (GC). However, tumor behavior in the individual patient is unpredictable and in spite of treatment advances, a classification of 'advanced stage' still portends a poor prognosis. Thus, further insights from molecular analyses are needed for better prognostic stratification and determination of new therapeutic targets. METHODS: A total of fifty-one fresh frozen tumor samples from patients with histopathologically confirmed diagnoses of GC, submitted to surgery with curative intent, were included in the study. Total RNA was extracted from an initial group of fifteen samples matched for known prognostic factors, categorized into two subgroups, according to patient overall survival: poor (<24 months) or favorable (at or above 24 months), and hybridized to Affymetrix Genechip human genome U133 plus 2.0 for genes associated with prognosis selection. Thirteen genes were selected for qPCR validation using those initial fifteen samples plus additional thirty-six samples. RESULTS: A total of 108 genes were associated with poor prognosis, independent of tumor staging. Using systems biology, we suggest that this panel reflects the dampening of immune/inflammatory response in the tumor microenvironment level and a shift to Th2/M2 activity. A gene trio (OLR1, CXCL11 and ADAMDEC1) was identified as an independent marker of prognosis, being the last two markers validated in an independent patient cohort. CONCLUSIONS: We determined a panel of three genes with prognostic value in gastric cancer, which should be further investigated. A gene expression profile suggestive of a dysfunctional inflammatory response was associated with unfavorable prognosis.
BACKGROUND: The TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours (TNM) staging system is the primary means of determining a prognosis for gastric adenocarcinoma (GC). However, tumor behavior in the individual patient is unpredictable and in spite of treatment advances, a classification of 'advanced stage' still portends a poor prognosis. Thus, further insights from molecular analyses are needed for better prognostic stratification and determination of new therapeutic targets. METHODS: A total of fifty-one fresh frozen tumor samples from patients with histopathologically confirmed diagnoses of GC, submitted to surgery with curative intent, were included in the study. Total RNA was extracted from an initial group of fifteen samples matched for known prognostic factors, categorized into two subgroups, according to patient overall survival: poor (<24 months) or favorable (at or above 24 months), and hybridized to Affymetrix Genechip human genome U133 plus 2.0 for genes associated with prognosis selection. Thirteen genes were selected for qPCR validation using those initial fifteen samples plus additional thirty-six samples. RESULTS: A total of 108 genes were associated with poor prognosis, independent of tumor staging. Using systems biology, we suggest that this panel reflects the dampening of immune/inflammatory response in the tumor microenvironment level and a shift to Th2/M2 activity. A gene trio (OLR1, CXCL11 and ADAMDEC1) was identified as an independent marker of prognosis, being the last two markers validated in an independent patient cohort. CONCLUSIONS: We determined a panel of three genes with prognostic value in gastric cancer, which should be further investigated. A gene expression profile suggestive of a dysfunctional inflammatory response was associated with unfavorable prognosis.
Authors: J Sanz-Ortega; S M Steinberg; E Moro; M Saez; J A Lopez; E Sierra; J Sanz-Esponera; M J Merino Journal: Histol Histopathol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Suet Yi Leung; Siu Tsan Yuen; Kent-Man Chu; Jonathan A Mathy; Rui Li; Annie S Y Chan; Simon Law; John Wong; Xin Chen; Samuel So Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Donia P Macartney-Coxson; Kylie A Hood; Hong-jun Shi; Teresa Ward; Anna Wiles; Rosemary O'Connor; David A Hall; Rod A Lea; Janice A Royds; Richard S Stubbs; Serena Rooker Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Jo Vandesompele; Katleen De Preter; Filip Pattyn; Bruce Poppe; Nadine Van Roy; Anne De Paepe; Frank Speleman Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2002-06-18 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Daniel Jose Szor; Andre Roncon Dias; Marina Alessandra Pereira; Marcus Fernando Kodama Pertille Ramos; Bruno Zilberstein; Ivan Cecconello; Ulysses Ribeiro-Júnior Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2018-06-18 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: Nuala R O'Shea; Thean S Chew; Jenny Dunne; Rebecca Marnane; Bahman Nedjat-Shokouhi; Philip J Smith; Stuart L Bloom; Andrew M Smith; Anthony W Segal Journal: J Crohns Colitis Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 9.071