Analysis of Promoter CpG Island Hypermethylation in Cancer: Location, Location, Location!

The genetic and epigenetic alterations that underlie cancer pathogenesis are rapidly being identified. This provides novel insights in tumor biology as well as in potential cancer biomarkers. The somatic mutations in cancer genes that have been implemented in clinical practice are well defined and very specific. For epigenetic alterations, and more specifically aberrant methylation of promoter CpG islands, evidence is emerging that these markers could be used for the early detection of cancer as well as prediction of prognosis and response to therapy. However, the exact location of biologically and clinically relevant hypermethylation has not been identified for the majority of methylation markers. The most widely used approaches to analyze DNA methylation are based on primer- and probe-based assays that provide information for a limited number of CpG dinucleotides and thus for only part of the information available in a given CpG island. Validation of the current data and implementation of hypermethylation markers in clinical practice require a more comprehensive and critical evaluation of DNA methylation and limitations of the techniques currently used in methylation marker research. Here, we discuss the emerging evidence on the importance of the location of CpG dinucleotide hypermethylation in relation to gene expression and associations with clinicopathologic characteristics in cancer

Different angiogenic potential in low and high grade sporadic clear cell renal cell carcinoma is not related to alterations in the von Hippel-Lindau gene Abbreviations CAIX carbonic anhydrase IX CcRCC clear cell renal cell carcinoma ECP% endothelial cell

Abstract. Background: von inactivation is common in sporadic clear cell renal cell carcinomas (ccRCC). pVHL is part of the ubiquitin ligase complex that targets the alpha subunits of hypoxia-inducible transcription factor (HIF) for degradation under well-oxygenated conditions. In the absence of wild-type pVHL, as observed in VHL patients and most sporadic ccRCCs, constitutive upregulation of HIF results in transcriptional activation of angiogenesis-related genes, such as VEGF. Differences in angiogenic activity within the group of ccRCCs were reported and strong genotype-phenotype correlations were found in patients with VHL disease, raising a question about the importance of VHL inactivation status in angiogenic behaviour and tumour progression. Methods: To address this question, we investigated the influence of VHL mutation (direct sequencing)/hypermethylation (methylation-specific PCR) on angiogenesis/tumour parameters (immunohistochemistry) in 150 patients with sporadic ccRCC. Results: We found no significant association between VHL mutation or methylation and angiogenesis/tumour parameters. Conclusion: These data indicate that tumour progression and angiogenesis are not directly influenced by VHL alterations and that additional genetic/epigenetic events should be considered to explain the diverse angiogenic and proliferative behaviour during tumour progression

Promoter methylation of CDO1 identifies clear-cell renal cell cancer patients with poor survival outcome

Purpose: In this era of molecular diagnostics, prediction of clear-cell renal cell cancer (ccRCC) survival requires optimization, as current prognostic markers fail to determine individual patient outcome. Epigenetic events are promising molecular markers. Promoter CpG island methylation of cysteine dioxygenase type 1 (CDO1), which was identified as prognostic marker for breast cancer, is studied as a potential marker for ccRCC survival. Experimental Design: We collected primary tissues of 365 ccRCC cases identified within the prospective Netherlands Cohort Study (NLCS). In this population-based series, CDO1 promoter methylation was observed in 124 of 324 (38.3%) patients with successful methylation-specific PCR analysis. Kaplan-Meier curves and Wilcoxon tests were used to evaluate 10-year ccRCC-specific survival. Cox regression analysis was used to obtain crude and multivariate HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The relative prognostic value of multivariate models with and without CDO1 promoter methylation was compared using likelihood-ratio tests. Results: Patients with CDO1 promoter methylation have a significantly poorer survival than those without (Wilcoxon P = 0.006). Differences in survival were independent of other prognostic factors, including age and sex (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.12-2.45) and TNM stage, tumor size, and Fuhrman grade (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.25-2.85). Multivariate models performed better with than without CDO1 promoter methylation status (likelihood ratio P = 0.003). Survival curves were validated in an independent series of 280 ccRCC cases from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA; Wilcoxon P < 0.001). Conclusions: CDO1 promoter methylation may not substitute common prognostic makers to predict ccRCC survival, but offers additional, relevant prognostic information, indicating that it might be a novel molecular marker to determine ccRCC prognosis.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

A Four-Gene Promoter Methylation Marker Panel Consisting of GREM1, NEURL, LAD1, and NEFH Predicts Survival of Clear Cell Renal Cell Cancer Patients.

Purpose: The currently used prognostic models for patients with nonmetastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) are based on clinicopathologic features and might be improved by adding molecular markers. Epigenetic alterations occur frequently in ccRCC and are promising biomarkers. The aim of this study is to identify prognostic promoter methylation markers for ccRCC.Experimental Design: We integrated data generated by massive parallel sequencing of methyl-binding domain enriched DNA and microarray-based RNA expression profiling of 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine-treated ccRCC cell lines to comprehensively characterize the ccRCC methylome. A selection of the identified methylation markers was evaluated in two independent series of primary ccRCC (n = 150 and n = 185) by methylation-specific PCR. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to estimate cause-specific survival. HRs and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models. To assess the predictive capacity and fit of models combining several methylation markers, HarrellC statistic and the Akaike Information Criterion were used.Results: We identified four methylation markers, that is, GREM1, NEURL, LAD1, and NEFH, that individually predicted prognosis of patients with ccRCC. The four markers combined were associated with poorer survival in two independent patient series (HR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.02-13.00 and HR, 7.54; 95% CI, 2.68-21.19). These findings were confirmed in a third series of ccRCC cases from The Cancer Genome Atlas (HR, 3.60; 95% CI, 2.02-6.40).Conclusions: A four-gene promoter methylation marker panel consisting of GREM1, NEURL, LAD1, and NEFH predicts outcome of patients with ccRCC and might be used to improve current prognostic models. Clin Cancer Res; 23(8); 2006-18. ©2016 AACR.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe