17 research outputs found
ΠΠΌΠΌΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΡ Π·Π»ΠΎΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ Π³Π»ΠΈΠΎΠΌ: ΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΡ ΠΈ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ
Despite aggressive multimodal treatment prognosis for malignant gliomas remains poor. The low efficiency of conventional cytostatic therapy forced to look for alternative approaches to treatment. This review deals with active immunotherapy using tumor vaccines and adoptive cell therapy. Vaccinotherapy may be carried out using tumor lysates or individual peptides, or mRNA. To improve the immunogenicity of vaccines dendritic cells and various immunoadjuvants are widely used. When using lysate vaccine in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme median progression-free survival is 9,5β18 months, and median overall survival is 16,25β35,9 months, significantly more than the historical control. Peptide vaccines to WT-1, survivin, mutated isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDHR132H), mutated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFRvIII) are under investigation. Promising are the methods of vaccinotherapy against glioma stem cells antigens, cytomegalovirus antigens. The possibility of integration of immunotherapy in the existing treatment standards, as well as a combination of several immunotherapeutic strategies, has been studied extensively.ΠΠ΅ΡΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ Π½Π° Π°Π³ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΌΡΠ»ΡΡΠΈΠΌΠΎΠ΄Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ΅ Π»Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³Π½ΠΎΠ· ΠΏΡΠΈ Π·Π»ΠΎΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
Π³Π»ΠΈΠΎΠΌΠ°Ρ
ΠΎΡΡΠ°Π΅ΡΡΡ ΠΏΠ»ΠΎΡ
ΠΈΠΌ. ΠΠΈΠ·ΠΊΠ°Ρ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΈΡΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ Π²ΡΠ½ΡΠΆΠ΄Π°Π΅Ρ ΠΈΡΠΊΠ°ΡΡ Π°Π»ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄Ρ ΠΊ Π»Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ. Π Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΠ±Π·ΠΎΡΠ΅ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΡΡ Π²ΠΎΠΏΡΠΎΡΡ Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΈΠΌΠΌΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ²ΠΎΠΎΠΏΡΡ
ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²ΡΡ
Π²Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ½ ΠΈ Π°Π΄ΠΎΠΏΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΊΠ»Π΅ΡΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ. ΠΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΡ ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ΅Ρ ΠΎΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π»ΡΡΡΡΡ Ρ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ ΠΎΠΏΡΡ
ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²ΡΡ
Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΎΠ² ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΎΡΠ΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΏΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΠ΄ΠΎΠ² ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΌΠ ΠΠ. ΠΠ»Ρ ΡΠ»ΡΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΈΠΌΠΌΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π²Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ½Ρ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΡΡΡΡΡ Π΄Π΅Π½Π΄ΡΠΈΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠ»Π΅ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠΌΠΌΡΠ½ΠΎΠ°Π΄ΡΡΠ²Π°Π½ΡΡ. ΠΡΠΈ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΈ Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π²Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ½Ρ ΠΏΡΠΈ Π²Π½ΠΎΠ²Ρ Π²ΡΡΠ²Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΡΠ»ΡΡΠΈΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π³Π»ΠΈΠΎΠ±Π»Π°ΡΡΠΎΠΌΠ΅ ΠΌΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ°Π½Π° Π²ΡΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°Π΅ΠΌΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π±Π΅Π· ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²Π»ΡΠ΅Ρ 9,5β18 ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΡΠ΅Π², Π° ΠΌΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ°Π½Π° ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΉ Π²ΡΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°Π΅ΠΌΠΎΡΡΠΈ 16,25β35,9 ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΡΠ°, ΡΡΠΎ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ Π²ΡΡΠ΅, ΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π² ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΠΎΠ»Π΅. Π‘ΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈ ΠΏΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΠ΄Π½ΡΡ
Π²Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ½ ΠΈΠ·ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΡΡ Π²Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ½Ρ ΠΊ WT-1, ΡΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠ²ΠΈΠ½Ρ, ΠΌΡΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠΌΡ Π²Π°ΡΠΈΠ°Π½ΡΡ ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΡΠΈΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΄Π΅Π³ΠΈΠ΄ΡΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½Π°Π·Ρ (IDHR132H), ΠΌΡΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠΌΡ Π²Π°ΡΠΈΠ°Π½ΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ° ΡΠΏΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΡΠΌΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΎΡΠ° ΡΠΎΡΡΠ° (EGFRvIII). ΠΠ΅ΡΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²Π»ΡΡΡΡΡ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄Ρ Π²Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ² Π°Π½ΡΠΈΠ³Π΅Π½ΠΎΠ² ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ²ΡΡ
ΠΊΠ»Π΅ΡΠΎΠΊ Π³Π»ΠΈΠΎΠΌ, ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π³Π°Π»ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡΡΡΠ½ΡΡ
Π°Π½ΡΠΈΠ³Π΅Π½ΠΎΠ². ΠΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎ ΠΈΠ·ΡΡΠ°Π΅ΡΡΡ Π²ΠΎΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅Π³ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈΠΌΠΌΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ Π² ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΡΡΡΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΠ°Π½Π΄Π°ΡΡΡ Π»Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ, Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠ±ΠΈΠ½Π°ΡΠΈΡ Π½Π΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ»ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈΠΌΠΌΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠ΅Π²ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΈΠΉ
ΠΠΏΡΡ ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠΎΠΊΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅Π½Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ Π·Π»ΠΎΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ Π³Π»ΠΈΠΎΠΌ
Microglial cells in malignant gliomas closely interact with tumor cells. Microenvironment provides local immunosuppression, which promotes escape of tumors from immune system control. Numerous cytokines secreted by microenvironment support survival, nutrition, growth, proliferation and invasion of tumor cells. Microenvironment-targeted therapy is no less important than the traditional cytostatic therapy. Seem promising therapies aimed at reducing the recruitment of immune cells and their amounts in the tumor tissue, at neutralizationof the immunosuppressive properties of microglia and / or inversion of its suppressive phenotype, as well as disinhibition and stimulation of antineoplastic functions of microenvironment.ΠΠ»Π΅ΡΠΊΠΈ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ³Π»ΠΈΠΈ Π² Π·Π»ΠΎΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
Π³Π»ΠΈΠΎΠΌΠ°Ρ
ΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·ΠΎΠΌ Π²Π·Π°ΠΈΠΌΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ²ΡΡΡ Ρ ΠΎΠΏΡΡ
ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²ΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΊΠ»Π΅ΡΠΊΠ°ΠΌΠΈ. ΠΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠΎΠΊΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΠ±Π΅ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ²Π°Π΅Ρ Π»ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ ΠΈΠΌΠΌΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠ°Ρ ΡΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ²ΡΠ΅Ρ ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΎΠΏΡΡ
ΠΎΠ»ΠΈ ΠΎΡ ΠΈΠΌΠΌΡΠ½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΠΎΠ»Ρ ΡΠΎ ΡΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ½Ρ ΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°. ΠΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ»Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠΊΠΈΠ½Ρ, ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΡΠ΅ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠΎΠΊΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ ΠΎΠ±Π΅ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡ Π²ΡΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅, ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅, ΡΠΎΡΡ, ΠΏΡΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½Π²Π°Π·ΠΈΡ ΠΎΠΏΡΡ
ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²ΡΡ
ΠΊΠ»Π΅ΡΠΎΠΊ. ΠΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π±Π½ΠΎΠ΅ Π²ΠΎΠ·Π΄Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π° ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠΎΠΊΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ Π½Π΅ ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π΅ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΌΡΠΌ, ΡΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½Π°Ρ ΡΠΈΡΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠ°Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΡ. ΠΠ΅ΡΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²Π»ΡΡΡΡΡ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΏΠΈΠΈ, Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΡΠ½ΠΈΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡΠΈΠ½Π³Π° ΠΈΠΌΠΌΡΠ½Π½ΡΡ
ΠΊΠ»Π΅ΡΠΎΠΊ ΠΈ ΠΈΡ
ΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π° Π² ΡΠΊΠ°Π½ΠΈ ΠΎΠΏΡΡ
ΠΎΠ»ΠΈ, Π½Π° Π½Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΈΠΌΠΌΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΡ
ΡΠ²ΠΎΠΉΡΡΠ² ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠ³Π»ΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ/ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΈΠ½Π²Π΅ΡΡΠΈΡ Π΅Π΅ ΡΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΡΠΈΠΏΠ°, Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ Π½Π° ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΡΠΈΠΌΡΠ»ΡΡΠΈΡ ΡΡΠΌΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ΄Π½ΡΡ
ΡΡΠ½ΠΊΡΠΈΠΉ ΠΌΠΈΠΊΡΠΎΠΎΠΊΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ
A Phase II Biomarker-Embedded Study of Lapatinib plus Capecitabine as First-line Therapy in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Gastric Cancer
Abstract
An exploratory phase II biomarker-embedded trial (LPT109747; NCT00526669) designed to determine the association of lapatinib-induced fluoropyrimidine gene changes with efficacy of lapatinib plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma independent of tumor HER2 status. Tumor biopsies obtained before and after 7-day lapatinib (1,250 mg) to analyze changes in gene expression, followed by a 14-day course of capecitabine (1,000 mg/m2 twice daily, 14/21 days) plus lapatinib 1,250 mg daily. Blood samples were acquired for pharmacokinetic analysis. Primary clinical objectives were response rate (RR) and 5-month progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives were overall survival (OS), PFS, time to response, duration of response, toxicity, and identification of associations between lapatinib pharmacokinetics and biomarker endpoints. Primary biomarker objectives were modulation of 5-FU-pathway genes by lapatinib, effects of germline SNPs on treatment outcome, and trough steady-state plasma lapatinib concentrations. Sixty-eight patients were enrolled; (75% gastric cancer, 25% gastroesophageal junction). Twelve patients (17.9%) had confirmed partial response, 31 (46.3%) had stable disease, and 16 (23.9%) had progressive disease. Median PFS and OS were 3.3 and 6.3 months, respectively. Frequent adverse events included diarrhea (45%), decreased appetite (39%), nausea (36%), and fatigue (36%). Lapatinib induced no changes in gene expression from baseline and no significant associations were found for SNPs analyzed. Elevated baseline HER3 mRNA expression was associated with a higher RR (33% vs. 0%; P = 0.008). Lapatinib plus capecitabine was well tolerated, demonstrating modest antitumor activity in patients with advanced gastric cancer. The association of elevated HER3 and RR warrants further investigation as an important player for HER-targeted regimens in combination with capecitabine. Mol Cancer Ther; 15(9); 2251β8. Β©2016 AACR.</jats:p
Efficacy and Safety of Trastuzumab Emtansine Plus Capecitabine vs Trastuzumab Emtansine Alone in Patients With Previously Treated ERBB2 (HER2)-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer A Phase 1 and Randomized Phase 2 Trial
Importance: ERBB2 (HER2)-targeted therapy provides benefits in metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and gastric cancer, but additional treatments are needed to maximize efficacy and quality of life. Objective: To determine maximum tolerated doses (MTDs) of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) plus capecitabine in patients with previously treated ERBB2-positive mBC and locally advanced/metastatic gastric cancer (LA/mGC) (phase 1) and the efficacy and safety of this combination vs T-DM1 alone in patients with mBC (phase 2). Design, setting, and participants: The MTD in phase 1 was assessed using a 3 + 3 design with capecitabine dose modification. Phase 2 was an open-label, randomized, international multicenter study of patients with mBC treated with T-DM1 plus capecitabine or T-DM1 alone. Eligible patients had previously treated ERBB2-positive mBC or LA/mGC with no prior chemotherapy treatment for advanced disease. Interventions: Patients in the phase 1 mBC cohort received capecitabine (750 mg/m2, 700 mg/m2, or 650 mg/m2 twice daily, days 1-14 of a 3-week cycle) plus T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Patients with LA/mGC received capecitabine at the mBC phase 1 MTD, de-escalating as needed, plus T-DM1 2.4 mg/kg weekly. In phase 2, patients with mBC were randomized (1:1) to receive capecitabine (at the phase 1 MTD) plus T-DM1 or T-DM1 alone. Main outcomes and measures: The phase 1 primary objective was to identify the MTD of capecitabine plus T-DM1. The phase 2 primary outcome was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR). Results: In phase 1, the median (range) age was 54.0 (37-71) and 57.5 (53-70) years for patients with mBC and patients with LA/mGC, respectively. The capecitabine MTD was identified as 700 mg/m2 in 11 patients with mBC and 6 patients with LA/mGC evaluable for dose-limiting toxic effects. In phase 2, between October 2014 and April 2016, patients with mBC (median [range] age, 52.0 [28-80] years) were randomized to receive combination therapy (n = 81) or T-DM1 (n = 80). The ORR was 44% (36 of 81 patients) and 36% (29 of 80 patients) in the combination and T-DM1 groups, respectively (difference, 8.2%; 90% CI, -4.5 to 20.9; P = .34; clinical cutoff, May 31, 2017). Adverse events (AEs) were reported in 78 of 82 patients (95%) in the combination group, with 36 (44%) experiencing grade 3-4 AEs, and 69 of 78 patients (88%) in the T-DM1 group, with 32 (41%) experiencing grade 3-4 AEs. No grade 5 AEs were reported. Conclusions and relevance: Adding capecitabine to T-DM1 did not statistically increase ORR associated with T-DM1 in patients with previously treated ERBB2-positive mBC. The combination group reported more AEs, but with no unexpected toxic effects
Identification of 12 new susceptibility loci for different histotypes of epithelial ovarian cancer.
To identify common alleles associated with different histotypes of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), we pooled data from multiple genome-wide genotyping projects totaling 25,509 EOC cases and 40,941 controls. We identified nine new susceptibility loci for different EOC histotypes: six for serous EOC histotypes (3q28, 4q32.3, 8q21.11, 10q24.33, 18q11.2 and 22q12.1), two for mucinous EOC (3q22.3 and 9q31.1) and one for endometrioid EOC (5q12.3). We then performed meta-analysis on the results for high-grade serous ovarian cancer with the results from analysis of 31,448 BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, including 3,887 mutation carriers with EOC. This identified three additional susceptibility loci at 2q13, 8q24.1 and 12q24.31. Integrated analyses of genes and regulatory biofeatures at each locus predicted candidate susceptibility genes, including OBFC1, a new candidate susceptibility gene for low-grade and borderline serous EOC
Whole Exome Sequencing Study Suggests an Impact of FANCA, CDH1 and VEGFA Genes on Diffuse Gastric Cancer Development
Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most common cancer types in the world with a high mortality rate. Hereditary predisposition for GC is not fully elucidated so far. The aim of this study was identification of possible new candidate genes, associated with the increased risk of gastric cancer development. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was performed on 18 DNA samples from adenocarcinoma specimens and non-tumor-bearing healthy stomach tissue from the same patient. Three pathogenic variants were identified: c.1320+1G>A in the CDH1 gene and c.27_28insCCCAGCCCCAGCTACCA (p.Ala9fs) of the VEGFA gene were found only in the tumor tissue, whereas c.G1874C (p.Cys625Ser) in the FANCA gene was found in both the tumor and normal tissue. These changes were found only in patients with diffuse gastric cancer and were absent in the DNA of healthy donors
Whole Exome Sequencing Study Suggests an Impact of <i>FANCA</i>, <i>CDH1</i> and <i>VEGFA</i> Genes on Diffuse Gastric Cancer Development
Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most common cancer types in the world with a high mortality rate. Hereditary predisposition for GC is not fully elucidated so far. The aim of this study was identification of possible new candidate genes, associated with the increased risk of gastric cancer development. Whole exome sequencing (WES) was performed on 18 DNA samples from adenocarcinoma specimens and non-tumor-bearing healthy stomach tissue from the same patient. Three pathogenic variants were identified: c.1320+1G>A in the CDH1 gene and c.27_28insCCCAGCCCCAGCTACCA (p.Ala9fs) of the VEGFA gene were found only in the tumor tissue, whereas c.G1874C (p.Cys625Ser) in the FANCA gene was found in both the tumor and normal tissue. These changes were found only in patients with diffuse gastric cancer and were absent in the DNA of healthy donors