Identification of unique rectal cancer-specific subtypes
Rattachement africain : ie, de, us, gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: Existing colorectal cancer subtyping methods were generated without much consideration of potential differences in expression profiles between colon and rectal tissues. Moreover, locally advanced rectal cancers at resection often have received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy which likely has a significant impact on gene expression. METHODS: We collected mRNA expression profiles for rectal and colon cancer samples (n = 2121). We observed that (i) Consensus Molecular Subtyping (CMS) had a different prognosis in treatment-naïve rectal vs. colon cancers, and (ii) that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy exposure produced a strong shift in CMS subtypes in rectal cancers. We therefore clustered 182 untreated rectal cancers to find rectal cancer-specific subtypes (RSSs). RESULTS: We identified three robust subtypes. We observed that RSS1 had better, and RSS2 had worse disease-free survival. RSS1 showed high expression of MYC target genes and low activity of angiogenesis genes. RSS2 exhibited low regulatory T cell abundance, strong EMT and angiogenesis signalling, and high activation of TGF-β, NF-κB, and TNF-α signalling. RSS3 was characterised by the deactivation of EGFR, MAPK and WNT pathways. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that RSS subtyping allows for more accurate prognosis predictions in rectal cancers than CMS subtyping and provides new insight into targetable disease pathways within these subtypes.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Identification of unique rectal cancer-specific subtypes
- Date Crossref
- 26/03/2024
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.