Please wait a minute...
文章检索
预防医学  2023, Vol. 35 Issue (2): 99-103    DOI: 10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2023.02.002
  论著 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
114例甲状腺乳头状癌亚型体细胞基因突变与TCGA数据库比较分析
曹星月1, 方海生2, 李霄2, 沈美萍2, 武晓泓1
1.浙江省人民医院(杭州医学院附属人民医院)内分泌科、老年医学中心,浙江 杭州 310014;
2.南京医科大学第一附属医院,江苏 南京 210000
Comparison of somatic gene mutation between 114 cases with different subtypes of thyroid papillary carcinoma and the TCGA database
CAO Xingyue1, FANG Haisheng2, LI Xiao2, SHEN Meiping2, WU Xiaohong1
1. Department of Endocrinology, Geriatric Medicine Center, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital (Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College), Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310014, China;
2. The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210000, China
全文: PDF(916 KB)  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 目的 比较114例甲状腺乳头状癌(PTC)不同亚型体细胞基因突变与癌症基因组图谱(TCGA)数据库的差异。方法 选择南京医科大学第一附属医院治疗的114例PTC病例,对其甲状腺术后组织采用二代测序技术检测甲状腺癌相关的18个热点基因;通过cBioPortal网站下载TCGA数据库PTC相关资料,比较114例PTC病例体细胞基因突变与TCGA数据库的差异。结果 114例PTC病例中,女性73例,占64.04%,年龄为(39.23±13.18)岁。114例PTC病例BRAF V600E、TERTp、PDGFRA、PTEN和TP53突变率分别为66.67%、3.51%、1.75%、3.51%和4.39%,高于TCGA数据库的48.68%、0.41%、0%、0.41%和0.61%(P<0.05)。在不同亚型中,经典型PTC病例的BRAF V600E、TP53 和TSHR突变率分别为80.88%、7.35%和2.94%,滤泡型PTC病例的BRAF V600E、TERTp突变率分别为36.84%和10.53%,均高于TCGA数据库的54.99%、0.57%、0%、13.86%和0%(P<0.05)。按美国甲状腺协会甲状腺癌复发风险分层,经典型中危组PTC病例BRAF V600E、TP53突变率分别为77.14%和8.57%,滤泡型低危组PTC的BRAF V600E突变率为27.27%,中危组的TERTp突变率为33.33%,均高于TCGA数据库的55.10%、0%、3.28%和0%(P<0.05)。结论 纳入比较分析的114例PTC病例体细胞基因突变类型和突变率与TCGA数据库存在明显差异。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
曹星月
方海生
李霄
沈美萍
武晓泓
关键词 甲状腺乳头状癌病理亚型TCGA数据库基因突变    
AbstractObjective To compare the difference in somatic gene mutation of PTC subtypes between 114 patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. Methods Totally 114 PTC patients admitted to The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University were recruited. The 18 hotspot genes associated with thyroid cancer were detected in thyroidectomy specimens were using next generation sequencing. PTC data were downloaded from the TCGA database in the cBioPortal website, and the difference in the somatic gene mutation was compared between 114 PTC patients and the TCGA database. Results The 114 PTC patients included 73 women (64.04%) and had a mean age of (39.23±13.18) years. The prevalence of BRAF V600E (66.67% vs. 48.68%), TERTp (3.51% vs. 0.41%), PDGFRA (1.75% vs. 0%), PTEN (3.51% vs. 0.41%) and TP53 gene mutations (4.39% vs. 0.61%) was significantly higher among the 114 PCT patients than in the TCGA database (P<0.05). The prevalence of BRAF V600E (80.88% vs. 54.99%), TP53 (7.35% vs. 0.57%) and TSHR gene mutations (2.94% vs. 0%) was significantly higher in classical PTC(CPTC) patients than in the TCGA database, and the prevalence of BRAF V600E (36.84% vs.13.86%) and TERTp gene mutations (10.53% vs. 0%) was significantly higher in follicular variant PTC (FVPTC) patients than in the TCGA database. According to the American Thyroid Association Risk Stratification of Thyroid Cancer Recurrence, the prevalence of BRAF V600E and TP53 gene mutations was 77.14% and 8.57% among moderate-risk CPTC patients, the prevalence of BRAF V600E gene mutation was 27.27% among low-risk FVPTC patients, and the prevalence of TERTp gene mutation was 33.33% among moderate-risk FVPTC patients, which were all higher than in the TCGA database (55.10%, 0%, 3.28%, and 0%, respectively; P<0.05). Conclusion There are significant differences in the type and rate of somatic gene mutations between 114 PTC patients and the TCGA database.
Key wordspapillary thyroid carcinoma    pathological subtype    TCGA database    gene mutation
收稿日期: 2022-11-10      修回日期: 2023-01-03      出版日期: 2023-02-10
中图分类号:  R736.1  
基金资助:浙江省医药卫生科技计划项目(2022KY498)
通信作者: 武晓泓,E-mail:drxhwu@163.com   
作者简介: 曹星月,硕士,住院医师,主要从事内分泌科临床与相关科研工作
引用本文:   
曹星月, 方海生, 李霄, 沈美萍, 武晓泓. 114例甲状腺乳头状癌亚型体细胞基因突变与TCGA数据库比较分析[J]. 预防医学, 2023, 35(2): 99-103.
CAO Xingyue, FANG Haisheng, LI Xiao, SHEN Meiping, WU Xiaohong. Comparison of somatic gene mutation between 114 cases with different subtypes of thyroid papillary carcinoma and the TCGA database. Preventive Medicine, 2023, 35(2): 99-103.
链接本文:  
http://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/10.19485/j.cnki.issn2096-5087.2023.02.002      或      http://www.zjyfyxzz.com/CN/Y2023/V35/I2/99
[1] ABDULLAH M I,JUNIT S M,NG K L,et al.Papillary thyroid cancer:genetic alterations and molecular biomarker investigations[J].Int J Med Sci,2019,16(3):450-460.
[2] KAKUDO K,BYCHKOV A,BAI Y,et al.The new 4th edition World Health Organization classification for thyroid tumors,Asian perspectives[J].Pathol Int,2018,68(12):641-664.
[3] 张萌,段焕利,王雷明,等.高侵袭性甲状腺乳头状癌的临床病理及分子特征分析[J].中华病理学杂志,2021,50(11):1234-1239.
[4] KIM T H,LEE M,KWON A Y,et al.Molecular genotyping of the non-invasive encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma[J].Histopathology,2018,72(4):648-661.
[5] COCA-PELAZ A,SHAH J P,HERNANDEZ-PRERA J C,et al.Papillary thyroid cancer-aggressive variants and impact on management:a narrative review[J].Adv Ther,2020,37(7):3112-3128.
[6] SONG Y S,LIM J A,PARK Y J.Mutation profile of well-differentiated thyroid cancer in Asians[J].Endocrinol Metab,2015,30(3):252-262.
[7] TUTTLE R M,HAUGEN B,PERRIER N D.Updated American Joint Committee on Cancer/tumor-node-metastasis staging system for differentiated and anaplastic thyroid cancer(eighth edition):what changed and why?[J].Thyroid,2017,27(6):751-756.
[8] HAUGEN B R,ALEXANDER E K,BIBLE K C,et al.2015 American Thyroid Association management guidelines for adult patients with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer:the American Thyroid Association guidelines task force on thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer[J].Thyroid,2016,26(1):1-133.
[9] HONG A R,LIM J A,KIM T H,et al.The frequency and clinical implications of the BRAF(V600E) mutation in papillary thyroid cancer patients in Korea over the past two decades[J].Endocrinol Metab,2014,29(4):505-513.
[10] JUNG C K,LITTLE M P,LUBIN J H,et al.The increase in thyroid cancer incidence during the last four decades is accompanied by a high frequency of BRAF mutations and a sharp increase in RAS mutations[J].J Clin Endocrinol Metab,2014,99(2):E276-E285.
[11] 魏洪发,宁洁,冯小玲.甲状腺乳头状癌分子生物学标志物的研究进展[J].医学综述,2018,24(21):4208-4213.
[12] HAROON A L,RASHEED M R,XU B.Molecular alterations in thyroid carcinoma[J].Surg Pathol Clin,2019,12(4):921-930.
[13] 李文华,韩春.RET/PTC重排与甲状腺乳头状癌的关系研究[J].国际耳鼻咽喉头颈外科杂志,2022,46(5):296-299,304.
[14] VALVO V,NUCERA C.Coding molecular determinants of thyroid cancer development and progression[J].Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am,2019,48(1):37-59.
[15] SOLOMON J P,BENAYED R,HECHTMAN J F,et al.Identifying patients with NTRK fusion cancer[J].Ann Oncol,2019,30(Suppl.8):Ⅷ16-Ⅷ22.
[16] KELLY L M,BARILA G,LIU P,et al.Identification of the transforming STRN-ALK fusion as a potential therapeutic target in the aggressive forms of thyroid cancer[J].Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A,2014,111(11):4233-4238.
[17] LIANG J,CAI W,FENG D,et al.Genetic landscape of papillary thyroid carcinoma in the Chinese population[J].J Pathol,2018,244(2):215-226.
[1] 高梦阳, 娄鹏威, 马丽, 李惠, 黄玉婷, 王璐, 王凯. 甲状腺乳头状癌中央区淋巴结转移预测模型研究[J]. 预防医学, 2023, 35(3): 229-234.
[2] 买哈巴·木合塔尔, 古丽达娜·塔布斯别克, 马晓薇, 李宏昀, 江志红, 黎飞海, 吴军. 砷和雌激素水平与甲状腺乳头状癌的关联研究[J]. 预防医学, 2022, 34(6): 577-580.
[3] 叶静芬, 方晴, 胡耀仁, 许小敏, 车洋. 北京基因型耐多药结核分枝杆菌二线抗结核药物耐药基因突变特征分析[J]. 预防医学, 2021, 33(10): 983-987.
[4] 刘洁楠, 易井萍, 李科峰, 金永富, 戴亚欣, 陈灿. 舟山市白纹伊蚊对拟除虫菊酯类杀虫剂的抗性表型和KDR基因突变分析[J]. 预防医学, 2020, 32(12): 1253-1256.
[5] 孟国民, 王虎良. 3 293名新生儿耳聋基因突变位点分析[J]. 预防医学, 2018, 30(5): 536-537,540.
[6] 张建军,曾艳. 原因不明复发性流产患者亚甲基四氢叶酸还原酶基因突变分析[J]. 预防医学, 2017, 29(2): 202-205.
[7] 余红, 杨晶群, 刘丹, 吴志强, 孙冬梅. 93例耳聋患儿耳聋基因检测结果[J]. 预防医学, 2016, 28(11): 1103-1106.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed