Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T03:38:39.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Genomic Imprinting Involved in the Pathogenesis of Pseudotriploid Neuroblastoma?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

O.A. Haas
O.A. Haas*
Affiliation:
CCRI, St. Anna Children's Hospital, Vienna, Austria
*
Children's Cancer Research Institute (CCRI), St. Anna Children's Hospital, Kinderspitalgasse 6, A-1090 Vienna, Austria E-mail: o.haas@magnet.at.

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Neuroblastoma is the most common solid tumor in children. It derives from the neural crest and originates from the sympathetic neuronal lineage [1-3]. At least two distinct biological-clinical entities can be distinguished [3-6]. One favorable subset occurs exclusively in infants and consists of early stages (I and II) as well as widespread disease (stage IV-S) at diagnosis. These tumors are commonly characterized by a hyperdiploid or pseudotriploid karyotype, but lack structural chromosome abnormalities. In particular, 1p abnormalities or N-myc gene amplification are not observed. Virtually all tumors identified with mass screening have belonged to these lower stages [4, 7, 8]. These patients show an excellent clinical outcome despite no or only minimal therapy. The other group of unfavorabled neuroblastomas is associated with older age and advanced stages (stages III and IV), and pseudodiploid karyotypes including lp deletions and N-myc oncogene amplification [2, 9]. Their outcome remains poor despite aggressive multimodality therapy and bone marrow transplantation. It is interesting to note that favorable neuroblastomas rarely, if ever, evolve into unfavorable disease [3].

Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 45 , Issue 1-2 , April 1996 , pp. 173 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1996

References

REFERENCES

1. Bernstein, ML, Leclerc, JM, Bunin, G, Brisson, L, Robison, L, Shuster, J, Byrne, T, Gregory, D, Hill, G, Dougherty, G, et al: A population-based study of neuroblastoma incidence, survival, and morality in North America. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 323–329.Google Scholar
2. Castleberry, RP: Clinical and biologic features in the prognosis and treatment of neuroblastoma. Curr Opin Oncol 1992; 4: 116–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Brodeur, GM: Neuroblastoma: Clinical significance of genetic abnormalities. Cancer Surv 1990; 9: 673–688.Google Scholar
4. Hayashi, Y, Inaba, T, Hanada, R, Yamada, M, Nakagome, Y, Yamamoto, K: Similar chromosomal patterns and lack of N-myc gene amplification in localized and IV-S stage neuroblastomas in infants. Med Pediatr Oncol 1989; 17: 111–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Paul, SR, Tarbell, NJ, Korf, B, Kretschmar, CS, Lavally, B, Grier, HE: Stage IV neuroblastoma in infants: Long-term survival. Cancer 1991; 67: 1493–1497.3.0.CO;2-#>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Méhes, K, Signer, E, Plüss, HJ, Müller, HJ, Stalder, G: Increased prevalence of minor anomalies in childhood malignancy. Eur J Pediatr 1985; 144: 243–249.Google Scholar
7. Hayashi, Y, Hanada, R, Yamamoto, K: Biology of neuroblastomas in Japan found by screening. Am J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 1992; 14: 342–347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Woods, WG, Lemieux, B, Tuchman, M: Neuroblastoma represents distinct clinical- biologic entities: A review and perspective from the Quebec Neuroblastoma Screening Project. Pediatrics 1992; 89: 114–118.Google Scholar
9. Schwab, M: Molecular cytogenetics of human neuroblastoma. Biochim Biophys Acta 1992; 1114: 43–50.Google Scholar
10. Pritchard, J, Hickman, JA: Why does stage 4s neuroblastoma regress spontaneously? Lancet 1994; 344: 869–870.Google Scholar
11. Knudson, AG Jr, Meadows, AT: Sounding board: Regression of neuroblastoma IV-S: A genetic hypothesis. N Engl J Med 1980; 302: 1254–1256.Google Scholar
12. Kemshead, JT, Patel, K, Phimister, B: Neuroblastoma in the very young child: Biological considerations. Br J Cancer Suppl 1992; 18: 102–105.Google Scholar
13. Haas, OA, Seyger, M: Hypothesis: Meiotic origin of trisomie neoplasms. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1993; 70: 112–116.Google Scholar
14. Junien, C: Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome, tumourigenesis and imprinting. Curr Opin Genet Dev 1992; 2: 431–438.Google Scholar
15. Feinberg, AP: Genomic imprinting and gene activation in cancer. Nat Genet 1993, 4: 110–113.Google Scholar
16 Vu, TH, Hoffman, AR: Promoter-specific imprinting of the human insulin-like growth factor-II gene. Nature 1994; 371: 714–717.Google Scholar
17 McFadden, DE, Kalousek, DK: Two different phenotypes of fetuses with chromosomal triploidy: Correlation with parental origin of the extra haploid set. Am J Med Genet 1991; 38: 535–538.Google Scholar
18. McFadden, DE, Kwong, LC, Yam, IY, Langlois, S: Parental origin of triploidy in human fetuses: Evidence for genomic imprinting. Hum Genet 1993; 92: 465–469.Google Scholar
19. Carakushansky, G, Teich, E, Ribeiro, MG, Horowitz, DDG, Pellegrini, S: Diploid/triploid mosaicism: Further delineation of the phenotype. Am J Med Genet 1994; 52: 399–401.Google Scholar
20. Schuhmacher, R, Mai, A, Gutjahr, P: Association of rib anomalies and malignancy in childhood. Eur J Pediatr 1992; 151: 432–434.Google Scholar