• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• 제14권10호
• /
• pp.5941-5948
• /
• 2013

Tumor response to antineoplastic drugs is not always predictable. This is also true for bladder carcinoma, a highly recurrent neoplasia. Currently, the combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine is well accepted as a standard protocol for treating bladder carcinoma. However, in some cases, this treatment protocol causes harmful side effects. Therefore, we investigated the roles of the genes TP53, RASSF1A (a tumor suppressor gene) and hMLH1 (a gene involved in the mismatch repair pathway) in cell susceptibility to cisplatin/gemcitabine treatment. Two bladder transitional carcinoma cell (TCC) lines, RT4 (wild-type TP53) and 5637 (mutated TP53), were used in this study. First, we evaluated whether the genotoxic potential of cisplatin/gemcitabine was dependent on TP53 status. Then, we evaluated whether the two antineoplastic drugs modulated RASSF1A and hMLH1 expression in the two cell lines. Increased DNA damage was observed in both cell lines after treatment with cisplatin or gemcitabine and with the two drugs simultaneously, as depicted by the comet assay. A lack of RASSF1A expression and hypermethylation of its promoter were observed before and after treatment in both cell lines. On the other hand, hMLH1 downregulation, unrelated to methylation status, was observed in RT4 cells after treatment with cisplatin or with cisplatin and gemcitabine simultaneously (wild-type TP53); in 5637 cells, hMLH1 was upregulated only after treatment with gemcitabine. In conclusion, the three treatment protocols were genotoxic, independent of TP53 status. However, cisplatin was the most effective, causing the highest level of DNA damage in both wild-type and mutated TP53 cells. Gemcitabine was the least genotoxic agent in both cell lines. Furthermore, no relationship was observed between the amount of DNA damage and the level of hMLH1 and RASSF1A expression. Therefore, other alternative pathways might be involved in cisplatin and gemcitabine genotoxicity in these two bladder cancer cell lines.

• Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society
• /
• 제59권2호
• /
• pp.83-90
• /
• 2016

Ependymomas occur in both the brain and spine. The prognosis of these tumors sometimes differs for different locations. The genetic landscape of ependymoma is very heterogeneous despite the similarity of histopathologic findings. In this review, we describe the genetic differences between spinal ependymomas and their intracranial counterparts to better understand their prognosis. From the literature review, many studies have reported that spinal cord ependymoma might be associated with NF2 mutation, NEFL overexpression, Merlin loss, and 9q gain. In myxopapillary ependymoma, NEFL and HOXB13 overexpression were reported to be associated. Prior studies have identified HIC-1 methylation, 4.1B deletion, and 4.1R loss as common features in intracranial ependymoma. Supratentorial ependymoma is usually characterized by NOTCH-1 mutation and p75 expression. TNC mutation, no hypermethylation of RASSF1A, and GFAP/NeuN expression may be diagnostic clues of posterior fossa ependymoma. Although MEN1, TP53, and PTEN mutations are rarely reported in ependymoma, they may be related to a poor prognosis, such as recurrence or metastasis. Spinal ependymoma has been found to be quite different from intracranial ependymoma in genetic studies, and the favorable prognosis in spinal ependymoma may be the result of the genetic differences. A more detailed understanding of these various genetic aberrations may enable the identification of more specific prognostic markers as well as the development of customized targeted therapies.