| Literature DB >> 31360864 |
MoonSun Jung1, Amanda J Russell1,2, Catherine Kennedy3, Andrew J Gifford1,4, Kylie-Ann Mallitt5, Siva Sivarajasingam1, David D Bowtell1,3,4,6,5,7,2, Anna DeFazio3, Michelle Haber1, Murray D Norris1,7, Michelle J Henderson1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Myc oncogene family has been implicated in many human malignancies and is often associated with particularly aggressive disease, suggesting Myc as an attractive prognostic marker and therapeutic target. However, for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), there is little consensus on the incidence and clinical relevance of Myc aberrations. Here we comprehensively investigated alterations in gene copy number, expression, and activity for Myc and evaluated their clinical significance in EOC.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 31360864 PMCID: PMC6649713 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pky047
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr ISSN: 2515-5091
Figure 1.Elevation of MYC, MYCN, and MYCL1 copy numbers in a panel of cancer cell lines. A–C)MYCN (A), MYC (B), and MYCL1 (C) copy numbers determined using qPCR and calculated as the geometric means relative to each of three endogenous control genes (Albumin, RNaseP, and NAGK) as described in the Supplementary Methods (available online). The cutoff for amplification was determined using a statistical algorithm. The dotted lines indicate optimal cutoff point for amplification or gain and the black bars indicate DNA of normal bone marrow. The bars with dashed lines or solid fill indicate gain or amplification of Myc gene, respectively, in each graph. D–G) The panels show representative images for FISH performed on cell lines as a tool to validate the qPCR-based method for determining of aberrations for MYC in MCF7 (D), LnCaP (E), SW-480 (F), and NB69 (G) (63x magnification). Vysis probes were used for MYC and CEP 8. The scale bars = 5 µm.
Univariate analysis of gene copy number and expression levels of MYC, MYCN and MYCL1 in EOC
| Serous EOC (n = 150) | Endometrioid EOC (n = 80) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PFS | OS | PFS | OS | |||||||
| Gene | No. of cases | HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | No. of cases | HR (95% CI) | P | HR (95% CI) | |||
| Gain | 11 | 0.99 (0.70 to 1.39) | .94 | 0.93 (0.59 to 1.47) | .75 | 0 | — | — | — | — |
| Amplification | 24 | 1.23 (0.78 to 1.96) | .38 | 0.92 (0.49 to 1.70) | .79 | 10 | 1.11 (0.38 to 3.23) | .85 | 0.66 (0.15 to 2.87) | .58 |
| Gain | 0 | — | — | — | — | 0 | — | — | — | — |
| Amplification | 0 | — | — | — | — | 0 | — | — | — | — |
| Gain | 0 | — | — | — | — | 0 | — | — | — | — |
| Amplification | 9 | 1.64 (0.80 to 3.36) | .18 | 1.56 (0.68 to 3.6) | .29 | 1 | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| Any Myc gene alteration | 44 | 1.28 (0.87 to 1.88) | .20 | 1.04 (0.64 to 1.69) | .88 | 11 | 0.97 (0.33 to 2.82) | .95 | 0.59 (0.14 to 2.57) | .48 |
| Overexpression | ||||||||||
| | MED | 1.04 (0.73 to 1.48) | .84 | 1.12 (0.73 to 1.74) | .60 | MED | 1.37 (0.63 to 2.94) | .43 | 1.69 (0.66 to 4.34) | .27 |
| | LQ | 0.89 (0.59 to 1.32) | .55 | 1.51 (0.68 to 1.95) | .60 | LQ | 1.92 (0.66 to 5.60) | .22 | 1.02 (0.34 to 3.10) | .97 |
| | LQ | 0.82 (0.55 to 1.23) | .06 | 0.70 (0.42 to 1.12) | .13 | MED | 2.06 (0.92 to 4.64) | .07 | 2.22 (0.87 to 5.63) | .09 |
Log-rank P value. PFS = progression-free survival; OS = overall survival; HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval; ND = not determined; MED = Medium; LQ = Lower Quartile.
The association of MYC and MYCL1 aberrations with clinicopathological parameters in 150 serous and 80 endometrioid EOC
| Serous EOC | Endometrioid EOC | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gain | Amplification | Amplification | Amplification | |||||||||||
| Parameters | Total | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | Total | No | Yes | ||||
| Stage | ||||||||||||||
| I/II | 17 | 16 | 1 | 1.000 | 15 | 2 | 1.000 | 17 | 0 | .598 | 53 | 50 | 3 | .010 |
| III/IV | 133 | 123 | 10 | 111 | 22 | 124 | 9 | 25 | 18 | 7 | ||||
| Grade | ||||||||||||||
| 1 or 2 | 34 | 32 | 2 | 1.000 | 31 | 3 | .288 | 33 | 1 | .685 | 49 | 46 | 3 | .041 |
| 3 | 116 | 107 | 9 | 95 | 21 | 108 | 3 | 31 | 24 | 7 | ||||
| Residual disease | ||||||||||||||
| No | 96 | 89 | 7 | 1.000 | 82 | 14 | .643 | 91 | 5 | .723 | 66 | 57 | 9 | .683 |
| Yes, >1 cm | 54 | 50 | 4 | 44 | 10 | 50 | 4 | 14 | 13 | 1 | ||||
P values are obtained from Fisher’s exact test. EOC = epithelial ovarian cancer.
Figure 2.Expression levels of MYC, MYCN, and MYCL1 mRNA according to Myc status in ovarian tumors. In cohorts serous epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) (A,C), and endometrioid EOC (B), relative gene expression levels of MYC (A,B) and MYCL1 (C) were calculated using the ΔΔCt, method and were compared between tumors with no alteration, gain, and amplification of each Myc gene. P values were calculated using either one-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s post-hoc analysis (A) or Welch’s t test (B,C).
Figure 3.Relationship between genomic amplification, mRNA, and protein expression levels of MYC in endometrioid epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) tumors. Seventeen paraffin-embedded endometrioid EOC tumors were stained with anti c-Myc (Antibody: 9E10). Tumors were scored as having absent, weak, moderate, or strong c-Myc protein staining, as defined in the Supplementary Methods (available online). A) Tumors are aligned according to MYC status and in order of increasing immunohistochemistry score. Also indicated are mRNA expression and clinical information for each sample. B–E) Examples of tumors with different levels of nuclear c-Myc protein expression and MYC amplification status with corresponding hemotoxylin and eosin-stained tissue in inserts are shown (600x magnification). B,C) Cases 1 and 2: MYC amplification but negative protein expression. D) Case 16: No MYC amplification but moderate-strong protein expression. E) Case 17: No MYC amplification but strong protein expression. F) Overview of properties of the 17 endometrioid tumor samples. Different tracks are indicated below.
Figure 4.Relationship of Myc activity signature to molecular alterations of Myc family genes and the prognostic significance in endometrioid epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). A) Myc activity levels were compared between tumors without Myc alteration (NO) and those with either gain or amplification (GAIN/AMP) in endometrioid EOC. Welch’s t test was used to determine different levels of Myc activity. B–D) Expression levels of MYC (B), MYCN (C), or MYCL1 (D) genes were also measured using qPCR and correlated to signature score in EOC. E,F) Kaplan–Meier analysis of signature scores in 61 endometrioid EOC was conducted for PFS (E) and OS (F). Signature scores were dichotomized at upper quartile in the overall cohorts of each tumor. P values were obtained from the log-rank test in each case.