| Literature DB >> 24364026 |
Glenn Jenkins1, Kenneth J O'Byrne2, Benedict Panizza3, Derek J Richard4.
Abstract
Genomic instability underlies the transformation of host cells toward malignancy, promotes development of invasion and metastasis and shapes the response of established cancer to treatment. In this review, we discuss recent advances in our understanding of genomic stability in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC), with an emphasis on DNA repair pathways. HNSCC is characterized by distinct profiles in genome stability between similarly staged cancers that are reflected in risk, treatment response and outcomes. Defective DNA repair generates chromosomal derangement that can cause subsequent alterations in gene expression, and is a hallmark of progression toward carcinoma. Variable functionality of an increasing spectrum of repair gene polymorphisms is associated with increased cancer risk, while aetiological factors such as human papillomavirus, tobacco and alcohol induce significantly different behaviour in induced malignancy, underpinned by differences in genomic stability. Targeted inhibition of signalling receptors has proven to be a clinically-validated therapy, and protein expression of other DNA repair and signalling molecules associated with cancer behaviour could potentially provide a more refined clinical model for prognosis and treatment prediction. Development and expansion of current genomic stability models is furthering our understanding of HNSCC pathophysiology and uncovering new, promising treatment strategies.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24364026 PMCID: PMC3834617 DOI: 10.1155/2013/464720
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Genomics ISSN: 2314-436X Impact factor: 2.326
Figure 1Common genomic stressors in carcinogenesis and therapy.
Figure 2Examples of DNA lesions and repair pathway choice.
| Reference | Subsite | Population | Study size | Gene SNP | Odds ratio ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sliwinski et al. [ | Laryngeal | Polish | 641 (288 cases, 353 controls) | Rad51 G135C | 2.92 (<0.0001) |
|
| |||||
| Romanowicz-Makowska et al. [ | Laryngeal | Polish | 506 (253 cases, 253 controls) | Rad51 G135C | NS [ |
|
| |||||
| Werbrouck et al. [ | All | Belgium | 169 cases, 352 controls | XRCC3 C722T | 1.96 (0.02) |
|
| |||||
| Cui et al. [ | North American | 443 cases (including oesophageal), 912 controls | XPG c.1104 | 0.47 (<0.05) | |
|
| |||||
| dos Reis et al. [ | Oral cavity | Brazil | 300 (150 cases, 150 controls) | XRCC1 Arg194Trp, Arg399Gln | NS |
|
| |||||
| Pawlowska et al. [ | Laryngeal | Polish | 506 (256 cases, 256 controls) | hOGG1 Ser326Cys | 2.96 (0.012) |
|
| |||||
|
Kietthubthew et al. [ | Oral cavity | Thai (betel quid endemic) | 106 cases, 164 controls | XRCC1 Arg194Trp, exon 6 | NS |
| XRCC3 Thr241Met | 3.3 (0.01) | ||||
|
| |||||
| XRCC3 rs3212057 | 6.0 (<0.01) | ||||
| Gresner et al. [ | All | Polish | 81 cases, 111 controls | Rad51 | 0.33 (<0.05) |
| Rad51 | 0.1 (<0.05) | ||||
|
| |||||
| Zhang et al. [ | All | North American | 706 cases, 1196 controls | hOGG1 Ser326Cys | NS |
|
| |||||
| Elahi et al. [ | All | North American | 169 cases, 338 controls | hOGG1 Ser326Cys | 1.6 (<0.05) |
|
| |||||
| Majumder et al. [ | All | Indian | 180 cases, 150 controls | XRCC1 c.194, c.399 | NS |
|
| |||||
| Mahjabeen et al. [ | Not specified | Pakistani | 300 cases, 300 controls | APEX1 | 4.97* (0.0001) |
|
| |||||
| Ramachandran et al. [ | Oral cavity | Indian | 110 cases, 110 controls | XRCC1 c.194 | 3.09 (<0.0001) |
|
| |||||
| Tae et al. [ | All | Korean | 147 cases, 168 controls | XRCC1 R194W | 2.61 (<0.05) |
|
| |||||
| Kumar et al. [ | Not specified | North Indian | 75 cases, 75 controls | XRCC1 Arg399Gln | NS |
|
| |||||
| Kumar et al. [ | Not specified | North Indian | 278 cases, 278 controls | XRCC1 Arg194Trp | 0.72 (0.03) |
|
| |||||
| Kowalski et al. [ | All | Polish | 92 cases, 124 controls | XRCC1 Arg194Trp | NS |
|
| |||||
|
Yen et al. [ | Oral cavity | Taiwan | 103 cases, 98 controls | XRCC1 Arg194Trp | NS |
| “pseudo-haplotype” multiple concurrent SNPs | 2–2.45 (0.03) | ||||
|
| |||||
| Tseng et al. [ | Oral cavity | Taiwan | 318 cases, 318 controls(1) | XRCC4 c247 | 2.04 (<0.05) |
|
| |||||
| Chiu et al. [ | Oral cavity | Taiwan | 318 cases, 318 controls(1) | XRCC4 G1394T | NS |
|
| |||||
| Chiu et al. [ | Oral cavity | Taiwan | 292 cases, 290 controls | ERCC6 | 1.82 (<0.05) |
|
| |||||
| Hsu et al. [ | Oral cavity | Taiwan | 600 cases, 600 controls(1) | Ku80 G-1401T |
1.603 (<0.05)(2)
|
|
| |||||
| Bau et al. [ | Oral cavity | Taiwan | 318 cases, 318 controls(1) | Ku70 T991C | 2.15 (<0.05) |
|
| |||||
| Bau et al. [ | Oral cavity | Taiwan | 620 cases, 620 controls | ATM | 1.61 (<0.05) |
|
| |||||
|
Flores-Obando et al. [ | Meta-analysis | Multiple | XPA A23G | NS | |
|
| |||||
| Zhai et al. [ | All | North America | 872 cases, 1044 controls | NEIL1 g.46434077 | NS |
*Crude odds ratio.
(1) Same group/cohort.
(2)Only in Areca-nut exposed subgroup.
Figure 3Downstream effects of EGFR on DNA repair proteins.