Cancer Research Cancer Epigenetics  Jordan
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rigaud, G.
Right arrow Articles by Scarpa, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rigaud, G.
Right arrow Articles by Scarpa, A.
[Cancer Research 61, 285-292, January 1, 2001]
© 2001 American Association for Cancer Research


Immunology

High Resolution Allelotype of Nonfunctional Pancreatic Endocrine Tumors: Identification of Two Molecular Subgroups with Clinical Implications1

Gildas Rigaud, Edoardo Missiaglia, Patrick S. Moore, Giuseppe Zamboni, Massimo Falconi, Giorgio Talamini, Anna Pesci, Antonella Baron, Daniele Lissandrini, Guido Rindi, Piergiovanni Grigolato, Paolo Pederzoli and Aldo Scarpa2

Departments of Pathology [G. R., E. M., P. S. M., G. Z., A. P., A. B., D. L., A. S.], Surgery [M. F., P. P.] and Medicine [G. T.], Università di Verona, I-37134 Verona, Italy, and Department of Pathology, Università di Brescia, Brescia I-25100, Italy [G. R., P. G.]


    ABSTRACT
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
A high resolution allelotype for nonfunctional pancreatic endocrine tumors (NF-PETs) has been generated by microsatellite analysis of DNA from 16 frozen cases, each probed with 394 markers. Two subgroups of NF-PETs were found. Seven cases showed frequent, large allelic deletions [loss of heterozygosity (LOH)] with an average fractional allelic loss (FAL) of 0.55, whereas nine cases showed a small number of random losses with a FAL of 0.15. Designated high or low FAL, respectively, these genetic phenotypes showed correlation with the ploidy status: high-FAL tumors were aneuploid, low-FAL were diploid. Chromosomes 6q and 11q showed LOH in >60% of cases. About 50% of cases had losses on 11p, 20q, and 21. Selected LOH analysis on an additional 16 paraffin-embedded NF-PETs confirmed the high frequency of 6q and 11q LOH. The allelotype of NF-PET is markedly different from that of either ductal or acinar tumors of the pancreas as well as from that of functional-PETs. Moreover, whereas deletions involving chromosome 11 also are a feature of functional-PETs, the involvement of chromosome 6q is characteristic of NF-PETs. Survival analysis showed that none of the single chromosomal alterations was associated with outcome, whereas ploidy status is an independent factor adding prognostic information to that furnished by the proliferative index measured by Ki-67 immunohistochemistry.


    INTRODUCTION
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
PETs3 are uncommon neoplasms arising from pancreatic islet cells and may occur either sporadically or as part of two familial cancer syndromes, MEN1 or von Hippel-Lindau syndrome. PETs are clinically classified as functional tumors (F-PETs) when associated with symptoms caused by excessive hormone secretion (1, 2, 3) or as nonfunctional tumors (NF-PETs) when they do not release any hormone or when they produce hormones that do not lead to a definite clinical syndrome such as pancreatic polypeptide or neurotensin (4, 5, 6) . F-PETs are mainly represented by insulinomas, are usually smaller, and have a more favorable clinical outcome compared with NF-PETs; it is likely that this is a consequence of the hormone-related symptoms that allow a more timely diagnosis of F-PETs. In fact, the initial clinical presentation of a NF-PET is commonly an abdominal mass or any symptom related to invasion of adjacent structures.

Little is known about the molecular anomalies occurring in PETs. Mutations of the MEN-1 gene at chromosome 11q13 have been found in roughly 30% of sporadic PETs (7 , 8) . The four genes frequently altered in common ductal adenocarcinoma, i.e., K-ras, p53, p16, and DPC4 (9) , also have been examined in PETs. The K-ras and p53 genes have no significant role in the pathogenesis of PETs (10 , 11) , whereas alteration of the p16 and DPC4 genes have been reported to be frequent events (12 , 13) despite the fact that allelic losses on chromosomes 9p and 18q are infrequent in these tumors (11 , 14) . However, at least in the case of DPC4, these data are controversial inasmuch as a recent study found no mutations of this gene in either sporadic or MEN1-associated PETs (15) . Although allelic losses at chromosomes 3p and 17p are found in a proportion of sporadic PETs, neither the von Hippel-Lindau nor the p53 genes are the mutational targets of these deletions (11 , 16) .

The identification of commonly deleted chromosomal regions by LOH analysis may aid in the localization of tumor suppressor genes. When this analysis is extended to multiple chromosomal arms, a distinct allelotype is generated. The only allelotype study available on PETs suggested that these tumors are characterized by a low frequency of chromosomal allelic deletions, and that putative tumor suppressor loci implicated in their pathogenesis are located on chromosomes 3q, 11p, 16p, and 22q (14) . This allelotype was based on the analysis of two markers per chromosomal arm in 28 cases and only included 7 NF-PETs (14) .

Here we report a high resolution allelotype for NF-PETs obtained by the analysis of 16 cases, each probed with 394 microsatellite markers, on DNA obtained from frozen tissue. We also performed LOH analysis on chromosomes 1, 3p, 6q, 9p, 11, 17p, and 18q for an additional 16 cases for which only paraffin-embedded material was available. This selection was based on the observations that: (a) chromosomes 6q and 11 showed the highest frequency of allelic loss in our allelotype study; (b) losses on chromosomes 1, 3p, and 17p have been suggested to be of some prognostic value (11 , 16 , 17) ; and (c) chromosomal arms 9p and 18q harbor the p16 and DPC4 genes, which have been implicated in NF-PET tumorigenesis (12 , 13) . The resulting allelotype for NF-PETs showed differences with respect to that of F-PETs and exocrine tumors of the pancreas (14 , 18, 19, 20) and allowed for the identification of two molecular subgroups of tumors that may be distinguished on the basis of the ploidy status. The latter was revealed as an independent prognostic factor for NF-PET outcome.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Tumors, Neoplastic Cell Enrichment, and DNA Extraction.
The clinicopathological characteristics of the 32 NF-PETs are reported in Table 1Citation . Personal and family histories were obtained by direct interview of patients, two of which (NF15 and NF20) had a family history suggestive of MEN1 syndrome. Diagnosis of PET was established by histopathological criteria and cell marker analysis and classified according to WHO criteria (21) . All tumors were considered nonfunctional because none gave rise to any clinical symptom related to hormonal hypersecretion regardless of the presence of immunostaining for any hormone. All tumors were characterized using a panel of monoclonal antibodies recognizing panendocrine markers (chromogranin A, synaptophysin, and nonspecific enolase), gastrointestinal hormones (insulin, glucagon, somatostatin, pancreatic polypeptide, gastrin, serotonin, and vasoactive intestinal peptide), and Ki-67 antigen (22) . Twelve tumors were considered benign and 20 were considered malignant in accordance with the respective absence or presence of invasion of the neighboring organs and/or distant metastases as evaluated by imaging techniques, surgical, and pathological examinations. A neoplastic cellularity of at least 90% was obtained in all cases by either cryostat enrichment or microdissection (23) . DNA was prepared as described (23) .


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 1 Clinicopathological data of the NF-PETs

 
High Resolution Allelotype Analysis of 16 NF-PETs.
The 16 NF-PETs for which high molecular weight DNA from frozen tissue was available (cases NF1–NF16) were analyzed for allelic loss at 394 microsatellite loci. The fluorescently labeled oligonucleotides used to amplify microsatellites were from the ABI Prism Linkage Mapping Set, version 2, except for chromosomes 9, 10, and 11, which were from the version 1 set (Perkin-Elmer). Chromosomal localization of each marker was verified at http://www.gdb.org/. PCR was performed as described previously (23) . PCR products were pooled and electrophoresed on a ABI PRISM 377 instrument. Electropherograms were analyzed for microsatellite alterations using GeneScan version 3.1 and Genotyper version 2.0 software (Perkin-Elmer). Only microsatellites showing two distinct alleles in normal DNA were considered as informative. For these, the intensity of the fluorescent bands from tumor DNA was compared with that of matched normal DNA. LOH was scored when there was loss of intensity of one allele in the tumor sample with respect to the matched allele from the normal tissue and the relative intensity of the two alleles in the tumor DNA differed from the relative intensity of those in the non-neoplastic tissue DNA by a factor of at least 2 (23) . Microsatellites showing differently sized alleles compared with their respective normal sample were scored as unstable. The mean FAL was calculated by the number of chromosomal arms having allelic loss divided by the total number of informative chromosomal arms.

Analysis of Selected Chromosomal Regions in an Additional 16 NF-PETs.
Sixteen NF-PETs for which only formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded material was available (cases NF17–NF32), were analyzed for allelic loss on chromosomal arms 1p and 1q, 3p, 6q, 9p, 11p and 11q, 17p, and 18q using two microsatellite markers per arm as follows: D1S2667 (1p36.23–36.13) and D1S2841 (1p33–32.2); D1S2878 (1q22–23.1) and D1S413 (1q32.1); D3S2338 (3p24.3) and D3S1263 (3p25.1); D6S287 (6q22.1) and D6S441 (6q25.1); D9S171 and D9S161; D11S904 (11p14.3) and D11S902 (11p15.3); D11S898 (11q22.1) and D11S908 (11q22.3–23.1); D17S799 (17p12) and D17S1857 (17p12); and D18S474 (18q12.3–21.1) and D18S1102 (18q12.3).

Ploidy Status Analysis.
The ploidy status was assessed by flow cytometry on cell suspensions from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded sections according to Hedley et al. (24) .

Statistical Analysis.
Univariate analysis was performed using the {chi}2 test or Fisher’s exact test to evaluate categorical variables, whereas the Mann-Whitney nonparametric U test was used for continuous variables. The Spearman correlation test was used to evaluate the association between variables. In particular, we tested the possible associations between LOH on single chromosomes (1p, 1q, 3p, 6q, 9p, 11p, 11q, 17p, and 18q) and the clinicopathological features including sex, age, tumor size, local invasion, metastasis, and the presence of hormone immunoreactivity.

For the survival analysis, the primary statistical outcome in this study was overall survival measured from the date of surgery. Death from cancer was the end point. The only drop-out case was lost at follow-up immediately after hospital discharge. No other case was lost at follow-up, which was updated at August 2000. Overall survival distribution was calculated by the product-limit method and analyzed using the Mantel-Cox test. Multivariate survival analysis was performed using the Cox proportional-hazard model (25) . To select the more parsimonious model, we used a backward elimination procedure including all conventional factors (age, sex, size, local invasion, and metastases), proliferation activity measured as Ki-67 index, and ploidy status. FAL status was not included in the analysis because this would have restricted the analysis only to the subgroup of 16 patients for which this data were available. The final model only included the factors consistently retaining significant P (<0.05). The SPSS release 9.0 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) statistical program was used.


    RESULTS
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
High Resolution Allelotype of 16 Nonfunctional PETs.
Each of the 16 NF-PETs for which DNA from frozen tissue was available was analyzed for allelic loss at 394 microsatellite loci covering all 22 autosomes. Representative results are shown in Fig. 1Citation , where it is evident that the complete loss of one allele is indicative of the success of our enrichment for neoplastic cellularity. The allelic status of these 16 NF-PETs at each chromosomal arm is shown in Fig. 2ACitation . All cases were informative for at least two markers on each chromosomal arm. The comprehensive allelotype is shown in Fig. 2BCitation and the detailed results are shown in Fig. 3Citation . Frequent LOH was found on chromosome arms 6q and 11q in >60% of cases, whereas about 50% of cases had losses on 11p, 20q, and 21. Chromosomes 2p and 10p showed loss in 44%, whereas the remaining chromosome arms had allelic losses in <40% of cases.



View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Fig. 1. Representative electropherogram tracings of microsatellite analysis. Loci and case numbers are as indicated along with examples showing allelic loss, retention, and a noninformative locus. N, normal; T, tumor.

 


View larger version (38K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Fig. 2. Allelotype of NF-PETs. A, allelic status of chromosomal arms in 16 NF-PETs. Gray box, allelic loss; white box, retained alleles. The Loss column indicates the percentage of LOH for each chromosomal arm, calculated by dividing the number of tumors that showed allelic loss by the total number of informative cases for that particular arm. B, graphical representation of the data in Fig. 2Citation A.

 


View larger version (74K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Fig. 3. High resolution chromosomal deletion mapping of 16 NF-PETs. All autosomes were analyzed for allelic loss using markers at the indicated chromosomal regions. Case numbers and chromosomes are as indicated. The key to the figure is shown at the lower right.

 
The average FAL was 0.33, calculated as the number of chromosomal arms having allelic loss divided by the total number of informative chromosomal arms. However, the contribution to the total FAL was mainly attributable to the seven cases showing more than 10 chromosomal arms affected by deletions (NF1, NF3, NF7, NF9, NF10, NF11, and NF12) with a mean FAL of 0.55, whereas the remaining nine cases showing <10 arms with allelic loss (NF2, NF4, NF5, NF6, NF8, NF13, NF14, NF15, and NF16) had a mean FAL of 0.15 (see individual FALs in Fig. 2ACitation ). Of 210 chromosomal arms which showed allelic losses, 106 were complete losses for an entire chromosomal arm or chromosome. In particular, the group with a FAL of 0.55 showed a total of 154 chromosomal arms affected by allelic losses, 100 of which involved the entire arm. In contrast, a total of 56 chromosomal arms were affected by allelic losses in the group of nine cases showing a mean FAL of 0.15; only 6 of these losses involved the entire chromosomal arm.

Our high-resolution allelotyping suggests that NF-PETs may be divided into two groups: one showing a high degree of large chromosomal allelic deletions; and the second with a low number of scattered losses with no apparent specific localization.

Analysis of Selected Chromosomal Regions in an Additional 16 NF-PETs.
DNA from 16 paraffin-embedded NF-PETs was analyzed for allelic loss on chromosomal arms 1p, 1q, 3p, 6q, 9p, 11p, 11q, 17p, and 18q using two microsatellite markers per arm, selected among those yielding PCR products <250 bp and therefore adequate to amplify the partially degraded DNA from paraffin-embedded material. Chromosomes 1p, 1q, 3p, and 17p were chosen because their allelic status has been reported to be of prognostic value (11 , 14 , 17) , whereas chromosomes 6q, 11p, and 11q were chosen because they were the most frequently affected by losses in our large-scale allelotype. Chromosomal arms 9p and 18q were included in the study because they harbor the tumor suppressor genes p16 and DPC4, respectively, which are reported to be frequently altered in NF-PETs (12 , 13) . The results are reported in Table 2Citation . In these additional cases, LOH on chromosomes 6q and 11q was found in 66% and 69% of cases, respectively, confirming the high frequency of LOH observed in the large-scale allelotype study. Allelic loss on chromosomes 9p and 18q was relatively infrequent, found in ~30% and 22% of cases, respectively.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 2 Allelic loss at selected chromosomal arms in 16 paraffin-embedded NF-PETsa

 
Ploidy Analysis.
Ploidy status was assessed in 31 cases, because 1 case had insufficient material available. Of these cases, 12 were aneuploid with a mean DNA index of 1.52 ± 0.28 SD (range 1.18–2.01); 19 cases were diploid (Table 1)Citation . Among the 16 cases for which FAL status was available, 5 of the 7 high-FAL cases (71%) were aneuploid (NF1, NF3, NF9, NF10, and NF11) and 2 cases were multiploid (NF9 and NF11), whereas all 9 low-FAL cases were diploid (data not shown). The ploidy status was significantly associated with FAL status (Fisher’s exact test; P < 0.005), with a high value of correlation (Spearman correlation test, 0.76; P < 0.001).

Univariate Analysis.
Twenty-two patients (69%) were living after a median follow-up time of 6.3 years, whereas 10 patients died of disease after a median time of 3.7 years. As expected, the three known prognostic parameters, i.e., local invasion (P < 0.001), metastasis (P < 0.001), and Ki-67 index (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with outcome (Refs. 22 , 26 ; Fig. 4Citation ). Ploidy status was also of prognostic value. In fact, 70% (7 of 10) of patients who died of their disease had aneuploid tumors, whereas only 24% (5 of 21) of surviving patients had aneuploid tumors (P < 0.02). At five years, 50% of patients with aneuploid tumors were alive compared with 85% of those with diploid tumors (log-rank test, P < 0.01).



View larger version (30K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Fig. 4. Survival curves obtained by the product-limit method. Better survival was associated with the absence of local invasion (P < 0.01) or metastasis (P < 0.003) and low Ki-67 index (P < 0.04) or euploid status (P < 0.01). The last graph shows the overall survival of patients according to both Ki-67 index and ploidy status. All patients with aneuploid tumors and a Ki-67 index >2% died of disease within 5 years, whereas all patients with euploid tumors and a Ki-67 index <2% were alive after 10 years (P < 0.0001).

 
LOH on single chromosomes (1p and 1q, 3p, 6q, 9p, 11p and 11q, 17p, and 18q) showed no significant correlation with either outcome or any clinicopathological characteristic, including sex, age, tumor size, presence of hormone immunoreactivity, local invasion, metastasis, and Ki-67 index.

Multivariate Survival Analysis.
Multivariate analysis was carried out including all conventional factors (age, sex, tumor size, presence of hormone immunoreactivity, local invasion, and metastasis), Ki-67 index, and ploidy status. Only Ki-67 index and ploidy status emerged as independent prognostic factors (Table 3)Citation , and both showed a proportional risk in the product-limit survival analysis (Fig. 4)Citation . As shown in the last graph of Fig. 4Citation , the survival analysis considering the combination of these two variables showed that none of the patients with diploid tumors and a Ki-67 index <2% died, whereas patients with aneuploid tumors and a Ki-67 index >2% had a poor prognosis. Intermediate results were obtained in the other two groups of patients, which showed a nonsignificantly different trend in survival.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 3 Multivariate statistical analysis (Cox’s model)

 

    DISCUSSION
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Endocrine tumors of the pancreas, with the exception of insulinomas, are malignant in ~50% of cases. However, even metastatic diseases may have a surprisingly prolonged clinical course. A first step toward unraveling the clinical enigma that PETs represent is a greater understanding of the molecular events underlying their pathogenesis. The present study allowed for the following conclusions: (a) the allelotype of a NF-PET is characterized by frequent allelic losses of 6q and 11q; (b) the NF-PET allelotype differs from those of either F-PET or pancreatic exocrine tumors, suggesting a different array of genes involved in its genesis and progression of malignancy with respect to the latter tumor types; (c) two subgroups of NF-PETs were identified on the basis of the degree of chromosomal derangement as measured by the FAL status, which is statistically correlated with ploidy status; and (d) ploidy was shown to be an independent prognostic factor at multivariate survival analysis.

The allelotype of NF-PET is characterized by highly frequent allelic losses involving chromosomal arms 6q and 11q; chromosomes 20p and 21 also had relatively frequent allelic loss, whereas the remaining autosomes were affected in <40% of cases. The analysis of selected loci on an additional 16 NF-PETs confirmed the high frequency of LOH on chromosomal arms 6q and 11q. This finding is also supported by a recent study of 44 PETs using comparative genomic hybridization, in which the highest frequency of losses was found on 6q and 11q (39% and 36% of cases, respectively) (27) .

The allelotype of NF-PET differs from that of F-PET, which showed the highest frequency of LOH on chromosomal arms 3q, 11p, 16p, and 22q in a previous allelotype study (14) . In that study, LOH on chromosome 6q was found in only one of 21 F-PETs and in 4 of 7 NF-PETs (14) . Thus, whereas allelic deletions involving chromosome 11 are characteristic of both F- and NF-PETs, the participation of chromosome 6q is a distinguishing feature of NF-PETs.

Deletions involving the long arm of chromosome 6 are frequent chromosomal aberrations in non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, acute lymphoblastic leukemias, and gastric carcinomas and, interestingly, have been reported to be a frequent event in pancreatic intraductal papillary-mucinous neoplasms (28, 29, 30) . This is therefore indicative of the existence of tumor suppressor loci on 6q that contribute to the pathogenesis of NF-PETs and other malignancies, although a target gene in this chromosomal region has yet to be identified. Genetic losses involving chromosome 11 most often encompassed the entire chromosome, even for those cases showing a low FAL, e.g.,. case 16. Whereas the MEN1 gene is located on this chromosome and is obviously involved in the familial syndrome, a proportion of sporadic NF-PETs also have somatic mutations of this gene (7 , 8) . As the losses observed often involve the entire chromosome, this would suggest that there are additional tumor suppressor genes residing on chromosome 11. One such candidate is the ATM gene located at 11q22–q23 (31) .

As pancreatic acinar carcinomas may express neuroendocrine markers, and mixed exocrine and endocrine pancreatic cancers exist (21) , one interesting question is whether PET shares molecular events with acinar or ductal carcinoma. Ductal carcinomas have a consistent, well-characterized allelotype consisting of highly frequent losses at chromosomes 1p, 9p, 17p, and 18q (18) . Acinar cell carcinomas have a markedly different allelotype, which is characterized by highly frequent LOH on chromosomes 4q and 16q (20) . Thus PETs are separate entities with molecular mechanisms distinct from pancreatic exocrine cancers. Moreover, chromosomal losses at 9p and 18q were not frequent in NF-PETs, confirming earlier reports (14 , 15) . Given the recent reports of high frequencies of alterations in NF-PETs of the p16 and DPC4 genes (12 , 13) , located on these chromosomes, a higher frequency of LOH would be expected if they are indeed involved in PET pathogenesis, as is found in pancreatic ductal cancers (18 , 23) . For DPC4, another report found no mutations in either sporadic or MEN1-associated PETs (15) . Furthermore, we found no alterations in either p16 or DPC4 in 41 PETs, including 30 nonfunctional and 11 functional tumors (32) . Taken together, the data suggest that these two genes are not likely to play a significant role in NF-PET pathogenesis.

LOH on chromosomes 1, 3p, and 17p was analyzed, as these losses have been reported to be of possible prognostic significance (11 , 16 , 17) . Whereas the moderate frequencies of allelic loss (<=40%) on these chromosomes in our series of 32 NF-PETs confirm previous studies (11 , 16 , 17) , we found no correlation between these losses and any clinicopathological parameter, including outcome. The frequency of allelic losses on these chromosomes was similar to that found on most other chromosomes and may merely reflect a background of genetic instability.

Our allelotype of 16 primary tumors concluded that there are two subgroups of NF-PETs. The first shows a large number of allelic deletions usually involving entire chromosomes, and the second shows a minute number of indiscriminate losses. This distinction is reflected in dramatic differences in the FAL, which interestingly also correlated with the ploidy status: high-FAL tumors were aneuploid or multiploid, whereas low-FAL tumors were diploid. Although not suggested by previous authors, the existence of two molecular PET subtypes can also be inferred from published data. In fact, the majority of functional PETs can be classified as belonging to the low-FAL subtype inasmuch as only ~20% of cases show a high FAL (14) . In our series of 16 NF-PETs, about half of cases were of either subtype. The existence of two molecular phenotypes among PETs can furthermore be deduced by reports on the ploidy pattern and a comparative genomic hybridization study of these tumors (27 , 33 , 34) .

The apparent division of NF-PETs into two subgroups on the basis of the dramatic differences in the frequency and type of allelic losses is of particular interest. In the high-FAL subgroup, the large number of losses of entire chromosomes may be indicative of defects involving mitotic segregation (35) . The losses in the low-FAL subgroup were not localized to any particular region and were more or less evenly distributed throughout all 22 autosomes. At present, it remains unclear what precise mechanisms may underlie these two molecular phenotypes. Interestingly, whereas the high FAL/aneuploid phenotype may be analogous to that seen in colorectal cancers showing chromosomal instability, no PETs have been found to show microsatellite instability (Refs. 11 , 14 , and the present report) of the type attributable to the alteration of mismatch repair genes, which cause only subtle sequence instabilities (for review see Ref. 35 ).

Our study also has clinical implications. In fact, evaluation of the malignant potential of PETs is difficult by histological criteria alone, and patients with metastatic diseases may have prolonged survival. We found a strong correlation between the degree of chromosomal derangement, as assessed by the FAL status and the ploidy pattern in 16 frozen tumors (P < 0.005). The ploidy status, assessed in 31 tumors, was selected by multivariate survival analysis as a prognostic indicator with a content of information possibly higher than that furnished by classic clinicopathological parameters associated with tumor aggressiveness and adding valuable clinical information to that given by the well-recognized Ki-67 proliferation index.


    FOOTNOTES
 
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1 This study was supported by grants from the Associazione Italiana Ricerca Cancro to A. S., Milan, Italy; Consorzio Studi Universitari di Verona, Italy; cofinanced grant from Verona and Brescia University and Ministero Università e Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (Cofin 9806151968 and 9906218982), Rome, Italy; Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Verona, Verona, Italy; Ministero Sanita’ (Ricerca finalizzata d.lgs.229/99), Rome, Italy; and European Community Grant BIOMED 2 CE-Contract BMH4-CT98-3805. Back

2 To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Dipartimento di Patologia-Sezione Anatomia Patologica, Università di Verona, Strada Le Grazie, I-37134 Verona, Italy. Phone: (39) (045) 8074-822; Fax: (39) (045) 8027-136; E-mail a.scarpa@univr.it. Back

3 The abbreviations used are: PET, pancreatic endocrine tumor; F-PET, functional pancreatic endocrine tumor; NF-PET, nonfunctional pancreatic endocrine tumor; MEN1, multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1; FAL, fractional allelic loss; LOH, loss of heterozygosity. Back

Received 1/11/00. Accepted 11/ 1/00.


    REFERENCES
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Service F. J., McMahon M. Functioning insulinoma-incidence, recurrence and long-term survival of patients: a 60 year study. Mayo Clin. Proc., 66: 711-719, 1991.[Medline]
  2. Eriksson B., Skogseid B., Lundqvist G., Wide L., Wilander E., Oberg K. Medical treatment and long-term survival in a prospective study of 84 patients with endocrine pancreatic tumors. Cancer (Phila.), 65: 1883-1890, 1990.[Medline]
  3. Donow C., Pipeleers-Marichal M., Schroder S., Stamm B., Heitz P. U., Kloppel G. Surgical pathology of gastrinoma. Site, size, multicentricity, association with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1, and malignancy. Cancer (Phila.), 68: 1329-1334, 1991.[Medline]
  4. Venkatesh S., Ordonez N. G., Ajani J., Schultz P. N., Hickey R. C., Johnston D. A., Samaan N. A. Islet cell carcinoma of the pancreas. A study of 98 patients. Cancer (Phila.), 65: 354-357, 1990.[Medline]
  5. Capella C., Heitz P. U., Hofler H., Solcia E., Kloppel G. Revised classification of neuroendocrine tumours of the lung, pancreas and gut. Virchows Arch., 425: 547-560, 1995.[Medline]
  6. Cheslyn-Curtis S., Sitaram V., Williamson R. Management of non-functioning neuroendocrine tumours of the pancreas. Brit. J. Surg., 80: 625-627, 1993.[Medline]
  7. Hessman O., Lindberg D., Skogseid B., Carling T., Hellman P., Rastad J., Akerstrom G., Westin G. Mutation of the multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 gene in nonfamilial, malignant tumors of the endocrine pancreas. Cancer Res., 58: 377-379, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Shan L., Nakamura Y., Nakamura M., Yokoi T., Tsujimoto M., Arima R., Kameya T., Kakudo K. Somatic mutations of multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 gene in the sporadic endocrine tumors. Lab. Investig., 78: 471-475, 1998.[Medline]
  9. Rozenblum E., Schutte M., Goggins M., Hahn S. A., Panzer S., Zahurak M., Goodman S. N., Sohn T. A., Hruban R. H., Yeo C. J., Kern S. E. Tumor-suppressive pathways in pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer Res., 57: 1731-1734, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Pellegata N. S., Sessa F., Renault B., Bonato M., Leone B. E., Solcia E., Ranzani G. N. K-ras and p53 gene mutations in pancreatic cancer: ductal and nonductal tumors progress through different genetic lesions. Cancer Res., 54: 1556-1560, 1994.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  11. Beghelli S., Pelosi G., Zamboni G., Falconi M., Iacono C., Bordi C., Scarpa A. Pancreatic endocrine tumours: evidence for a tumour suppressor pathogenesis and for a tumour suppressor gene on chromosome 17. p. J. Pathol., 186: 41-50, 1998.[Medline]
  12. Muscarella, P., Melvin, W. S., Fisher, W. E., Foor, J., Ellison, E. C., Herman, J. G., Schirmer, W. J., Hitchcock, C. L., DeYoung, B. R., and Weghorst, C. M. Genetic alterations in gastrinomas and nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: an analysis of p16/MTS1 tumor suppressor gene inactivation. Cancer Res. 58: 237–240, 1998.
  13. Bartsch D., Hahn S. A., Danichevski K. D., Ramaswamy A., Bastian D., Galehdari H., Barth P., Schmiegel W., Simon B., Rothmund M. Mutations of the DPC4/Smad4 gene in neuroendocrine pancreatic tumors. Oncogene, 18: 2367-2371, 1999.[Medline]
  14. Chung, D. C., Brown, S. B., Graeme-Cook, F., Tillotson, L. G., Warshaw, A. L., Jensen, R. T., and Arnold, A. Localization of putative tumor suppressor loci by genome-wide allelotyping in human pancreatic endocrine tumors. Cancer Res. 58: 3706–3711, 1998.
  15. Hessman O., Lindberg D., Einarsson A., Lillhager P., Carling T., Grimelius L., Eriksson B., Kerstr{varphi}m G., Westin G., Skogseid B. Genetic alterations on 3p, 11q13, and 18q in nonfamilial and MEN 1-associated pancreatic endocrine tumors. Genes Chromosomes Cancer, 26: 258-264, 1999.[Medline]
  16. Chung D. C., Smith A. P., Louis D. N., Graeme-Cook F., Warshaw A. L., Arnold A. A novel pancreatic endocrine tumor suppressor gene locus on chromosome 3p with clinical prognostic implications. J. Clin. Investig., 100: 404-410, 1997.[Medline]
  17. Ebrahimi S. A., Wang E. H., Wu A., Schreck R. R., Passaro E., Jr., Sawicki M. P. Deletion of chromosome 1 predicts prognosis in pancreatic endocrine tumors. Cancer Res., 59: 311-315, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Hahn S. A., Seymour A. B., Hoque A. T., Schutte M., da Costa L. T., Redston M. S., Caldas C., Weinstein C. L., Fischer A., Yeo C. J., Hruban R. H., Kern S. E. Allelotype of pancreatic adenocarcinoma using xenograft enrichment. Cancer Res., 55: 4670-4675, 1995.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Moore, P., Zamboni, G., Brighenti, A., Lissandrini, D., Antonello, D., Capelli, P., Rigaud, G., Falconi, M., and Scarpa, A. Molecular characterization of pancreatic serous microcystic adenomas: evidence for a tumor suppressor gene on chromosome 10q. Am. J. Pathol., in press, 2001.
  20. Rigaud G., Moore P., Zamboni G., Taruscio D., Paradisi S., Falconi M., Kl{varphi}ppel G., Scarpa A. Allelotype of pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma. Int. J. Cancer, 88: 772-777, 2000.[Medline]
  21. Solcia, E., Kl{varphi}ppel, G., and Sobin, L. Histological typing of endocrine tumors. In: WHO Classification of Endocrine Tumors. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag, 2000.
  22. Pelosi G., Bresaola E., Bogina G., Pasini F., Rodella S., Castelli P., Iacono C., Serio G., Zamboni G. Endocrine tumors of the pancreas: Ki-67 immunoreactivity on paraffin sections is an independent predictor for malignancy: a comparative study with proliferating-cell nuclear antigen and progesterone receptor protein immunostaining, mitotic index, and other clinicopathologic variables. Hum. Pathol., 27: 1124-1134, 1996.[Medline]
  23. Achille A., Biasi M. O., Zamboni G., Bogina G., Magalini A. R., Pederzoli P., Perucho M., Scarpa A. Chromosome 7q allelic losses in pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer Res., 56: 3808-3813, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Hedley D. W., Friedlander M. L., Taylor I. W., Rugg C. A., Musgrove E. A. Method for analysis of cellular DNA content of paraffin-embedded pathological material using flow cytometry. J. Histochem. Cytochem., 31: 1333-1335, 1983.[Abstract]
  25. Cox D. R. Regression models and life-tables. J. R. Stat. Soc. [B], 34: 187-220, 1972.
  26. La Rosa S., Sessa F., Capella C., Riva C., Leone B. E., Klersy C., Rindi G., Solcia E. Prognostic criteria in nonfunctioning pancreatic endocrine tumours. Virchows Arch., 429: 323-333, 1996.[Medline]
  27. Speel E. J., Richter J., Moch H., Egenter C., Saremaslani P., Rutimann K., Zhao J., Barghorn A., Roth J., Heitz P. U., Komminoth P. Genetic differences in endocrine pancreatic tumor subtypes detected by comparative genomic hybridization. Am. J. Pathol., 155: 1787-1794, 1999.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Merup M., Moreno T. C., Heyman M., Ronnberg K., Grander D., Detlofsson R., Rasool O., Liu Y., Soderhall S., Juliusson G., Gahrton G., Einhorn S. 6q deletions in acute lymphoblastic leukemia and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Blood, 91: 3397-3400, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Carvalho B., Seruca R., Carneiro F., Buys C. H., Kok K. Substantial reduction of the gastric carcinoma critical region at 6q16. 3-q23.1. Genes Chromosomes Cancer, 26: 29-34, 1999.
  30. Fujii H., Inagaki M., Kasai S., Miyokawa N., Tokusashi Y., Gabrielson E., Hruban R. H. Genetic progression and heterogeneity in intraductal papillary-mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. Am. J. Pathol., 151: 1447-1454, 1997.[Abstract]
  31. Gatti R. A., Berkel I., Boder E., Braedt G., Charmley P., Concannon P., Ersoy F., Foroud T., Jaspers N. G., Lange K., Lathrop G. M., Leppert M., Nakamura Y., O’Connell P., Paterson M., Salser W., Sanal O., Silver J., Sparkes R. S., Susi E., Weeks D. E., Wei S., White R., Yoder F. Localization of an ataxia-telangiectasia gene to chromosome 11q22-23. Nature (Lond.), 336: 577-580, 1988.[Medline]
  32. Moore, P., Orlandini, S., Zamboni, G., Capelli, P., Rigaud, G., Falconi, M., Bassi, C., Lemoine, N., and Scarpa, A. Pancreatic tumors: molecular pathways implicated in ductal cancer are involved in ampullary but not in exocrine nonductal or endocrine tumorigenesis, Brit. J. Cancer, in press, 2001.
  33. Donow C., Baisch H., Heitz P. U., Kloppel G. Nuclear DNA content in 27 pancreatic endocrine tumours: correlation with malignancy, survival and expression of glycoprotein hormone {alpha} chain. Virchows Arch. A Pathol. Anat. Histopathol., 419: 463-468, 1991.[Medline]
  34. Lee C. S., Charlton I. G., Williams R. A., Dhillon A. P., Rode J. Malignant potential of aneuploid pancreatic endocrine tumours. J. Pathol., 169: 451-456, 1993.[Medline]
  35. Lengauer C., Kinzler K. W., Vogelstein B. Genetic instabilities in human cancers. Nature (Lond.), 396: 643-649, 1998.[Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
R. Bettini, L. Boninsegna, W. Mantovani, P. Capelli, C. Bassi, P. Pederzoli, G. F. Delle Fave, F. Panzuto, A. Scarpa, and M. Falconi
Prognostic factors at diagnosis and value of WHO classification in a mono-institutional series of 180 non-functioning pancreatic endocrine tumours
Ann. Onc., May 1, 2008; 19(5): 903 - 908.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Endocr Relat CancerHome page
C. Piani, G. M Franchi, C. Cappelletti, M. Scavini, L. Albarello, A. Zerbi, P. Giorgio Arcidiacono, E. Bosi, and M. F Manzoni
Cytological Ki-67 in pancreatic endocrine tumours: an opportunity for pre-operative grading
Endocr. Relat. Cancer, March 1, 2008; 15(1): 175 - 181.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Endocr Relat CancerHome page
Y M H Jonkers, S M H Claessen, A Perren, A M Schmitt, L J Hofland, W de Herder, R R de Krijger, A A J Verhofstad, A R Hermus, J A Kummer, et al.
DNA copy number status is a powerful predictor of poor survival in endocrine pancreatic tumor patients
Endocr. Relat. Cancer, September 1, 2007; 14(3): 769 - 779.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Endocr Relat CancerHome page
E. Vilar, R. Salazar, J. Perez-Garcia, J. Cortes, K. Oberg, and J. Tabernero
Chemotherapy and role of the proliferation marker Ki-67 in digestive neuroendocrine tumors
Endocr. Relat. Cancer, June 1, 2007; 14(2): 221 - 232.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Endocr Relat CancerHome page
Y. Nagano, D. H. Kim, L. Zhang, J. A White, J. C Yao, S. R Hamilton, and A. Rashid
Allelic alterations in pancreatic endocrine tumors identified by genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism analysis
Endocr. Relat. Cancer, June 1, 2007; 14(2): 483 - 492.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Endocr Relat CancerHome page
F. Panzuto, S. Nasoni, M. Falconi, V. D. Corleto, G. Capurso, S. Cassetta, M. Di Fonzo, V. Tornatore, M. Milione, S. Angeletti, et al.
Prognostic factors and survival in endocrine tumor patients: comparison between gastrointestinal and pancreatic localization
Endocr. Relat. Cancer, December 1, 2005; 12(4): 1083 - 1092.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
P. Tomassetti, D. Campana, L. Piscitelli, R. Casadei, D. Santini, F. Nori, A. M. Morselli-Labate, R. Pezzilli, and R. Corinaldesi
Endocrine pancreatic tumors: factors correlated with survival
Ann. Onc., November 1, 2005; 16(11): 1806 - 1810.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Endocr. Rev.Home page
G. A. Kaltsas, G. M. Besser, and A. B. Grossman
The Diagnosis and Medical Management of Advanced Neuroendocrine Tumors
Endocr. Rev., June 1, 2004; 25(3): 458 - 511.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Res.Home page
C. A. Iacobuzio-Donahue, M. S. van der Heijden, M. R. Baumgartner, W. J. Troup, J. M. Romm, K. Doheny, E. Pugh, C. J. Yeo, M. G. Goggins, R. H. Hruban, et al.
Large-Scale Allelotype of Pancreaticobiliary Carcinoma Provides Quantitative Estimates of Genome-Wide Allelic Loss
Cancer Res., February 1, 2004; 64(3): 871 - 875.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
D. Furlan, R. Cerutti, S. Uccella, S. La Rosa, E. Rigoli, A. Genasetti, and C. Capella
Different Molecular Profiles Characterize Well-Differentiated Endocrine Tumors and Poorly Differentiated Endocrine Carcinomas of the Gastroenteropancreatic Tract
Clin. Cancer Res., February 1, 2004; 10(3): 947 - 957.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
A. Maitra, D. E. Hansel, P. Argani, R. Ashfaq, A. Rahman, A. Naji, S. Deng, J. Geradts, L. Hawthorne, M. G. House, et al.
Global Expression Analysis of Well-Differentiated Pancreatic Endocrine Neoplasms Using Oligonucleotide Microarrays
Clin. Cancer Res., December 1, 2003; 9(16): 5988 - 5995.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.Home page
A. Wild, A. Ramaswamy, P. Langer, I. Celik, V. Fendrich, B. Chaloupka, B. Simon, and D. K. Bartsch
Frequent Methylation-Associated Silencing of the Tissue Inhibitor of Metalloproteinase-3 Gene in Pancreatic Endocrine Tumors
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., March 1, 2003; 88(3): 1367 - 1373.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Cancer Res.Home page
Y.-J. Chen, A. Vortmeyer, Z. Zhuang, S. Huang, and R. T. Jensen
Loss of Heterozygosity of Chromosome 1q in Gastrinomas: Occurrence and Prognostic Significance
Cancer Res., February 15, 2003; 63(4): 817 - 823.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
S. N. Hochwald, S. Zee, K. C. Conlon, R. Colleoni, O. Louie, M. F. Brennan, and D. S. Klimstra
Prognostic Factors in Pancreatic Endocrine Neoplasms: An Analysis of 136 Cases With a Proposal for Low-Grade and Intermediate-Grade Groups
J. Clin. Oncol., June 1, 2002; 20(11): 2633 - 2642.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rigaud, G.
Right arrow Articles by Scarpa, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rigaud, G.
Right arrow Articles by Scarpa, A.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online