BACKGROUND: Securing the negative surgical margin is the first step in surgical cancer treatment. However, tumor recurrence sometimes occurs even with histologically negative surgical margins. To detect minimal residual cancer cells in the deep margin intraoperatively, a time-efficient molecular approach is required. METHODS: We established an innovative rapid quantitative methylation PCR (QMSP) assay, which consists of substantially time-minimized DNA extraction, bisulfite treatment, and QMSP assays. To demonstrate the feasibility of this procedure, 10 serial surgical specimens of primary head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) were evaluated by both rapid and conventional QMSP. Two frequently methylated genes in head and neck cancer, homeobox A9 (HOXA9) and endothelin receptor type B (EDNRB) were analyzed in 10 HNSCCs and surgical margin tissues, as well as normal muscle and oral mucosa samples. RESULTS: The product quality of DNA extraction and bisulfite treatment using the time-saving procedure was comparable to the conventional procedure. In the QMSP assay, target gene methylation and reference gene methylation were equally detected by both the rapid and conventional method. Finally, relative results of rapid and conventional QMSP were quite similar to each other in tumors, margins, and normal tissues. The average total time required for the rapid QMSP procedure was less than 3 h and could be accomplished by a single person. CONCLUSION: From the viewpoint of accuracy, cost, and time consumption, the innovative rapid QMSP maintains highly sensitive methylation detection accomplished within the time frame of a major ablative and reconstructive procedure.
BACKGROUND: Securing the negative surgical margin is the first step in surgical cancer treatment. However, tumor recurrence sometimes occurs even with histologically negative surgical margins. To detect minimal residual cancer cells in the deep margin intraoperatively, a time-efficient molecular approach is required. METHODS: We established an innovative rapid quantitative methylation PCR (QMSP) assay, which consists of substantially time-minimized DNA extraction, bisulfite treatment, and QMSP assays. To demonstrate the feasibility of this procedure, 10 serial surgical specimens of primary head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) were evaluated by both rapid and conventional QMSP. Two frequently methylated genes in head and neck cancer, homeobox A9 (HOXA9) and endothelin receptor type B (EDNRB) were analyzed in 10 HNSCCs and surgical margin tissues, as well as normal muscle and oral mucosa samples. RESULTS: The product quality of DNA extraction and bisulfite treatment using the time-saving procedure was comparable to the conventional procedure. In the QMSP assay, target gene methylation and reference gene methylation were equally detected by both the rapid and conventional method. Finally, relative results of rapid and conventional QMSP were quite similar to each other in tumors, margins, and normal tissues. The average total time required for the rapid QMSP procedure was less than 3 h and could be accomplished by a single person. CONCLUSION: From the viewpoint of accuracy, cost, and time consumption, the innovative rapid QMSP maintains highly sensitive methylation detection accomplished within the time frame of a major ablative and reconstructive procedure.
Authors: Yong-June Kim; Hyung-Yoon Yoon; Ji Sang Kim; Ho Won Kang; Byung-Dal Min; Seon-Kyu Kim; Yun-Sok Ha; Isaac Yi Kim; Keun Ho Ryu; Sang-Cheol Lee; Wun-Jae Kim Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2013-03-16 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Sang-Hyun Hwang; Ki Uk Kim; Ji-Eun Kim; Hyung-Hoi Kim; Min Ki Lee; Chang Hun Lee; Sang-Yull Lee; Taejeong Oh; Sungwhan An Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Semra Demokan; Xiaofei Chang; Alice Chuang; Wojciech K Mydlarz; Jatinder Kaur; Peng Huang; Zubair Khan; Tanbir Khan; Kimberly L Ostrow; Mariana Brait; Mohammad O Hoque; Nanette J Liegeois; David Sidransky; Wayne Koch; Joseph A Califano Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-11-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Carmen J Marsit; E Andres Houseman; Alan R Schned; Margaret R Karagas; Karl T Kelsey Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2007-05-23 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Alhadi Almangush; Ibrahim O Bello; Harri Keski-Säntti; Laura K Mäkinen; Joonas H Kauppila; Matti Pukkila; Jaana Hagström; Jussi Laranne; Satu Tommola; Outi Nieminen; Ylermi Soini; Veli-Matti Kosma; Petri Koivunen; Reidar Grénman; Ilmo Leivo; Tuula Salo Journal: Head Neck Date: 2013-09-02 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Rafael Guerrero-Preston; Fahcina Lawson; Sebastian Rodriguez-Torres; Maartje G Noordhuis; Francesca Pirini; Laura Manuel; Blanca L Valle; Tal Hadar; Bianca Rivera; Oluwasina Folawiyo; Adriana Baez; Luigi Marchionni; Wayne M Koch; William H Westra; Young J Kim; James R Eshleman; David Sidransky Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2019-02-18
Authors: Daria A Gaykalova; Rajita Vatapalli; Yingying Wei; Hua-Ling Tsai; Hao Wang; Chi Zhang; Patrick T Hennessey; Theresa Guo; Marietta Tan; Ryan Li; Julie Ahn; Zubair Khan; William H Westra; Justin A Bishop; David Zaboli; Wayne M Koch; Tanbir Khan; Michael F Ochs; Joseph A Califano Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-06 Impact factor: 3.240