Socioeconomic disparities and the genomic landscape of gastric cancer
Rattachement africain : pe, es. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
The genomic characteristics of Peruvian patients with gastric adenocarcinoma from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds were examined in consideration of the possibility that patients from different socioeconomic backgrounds may be exposed to different risk factors. We conducted a prospective pilot study in two Peruvian cities (Lima and Ica). This study enrolled 15 patients from low socioeconomic status (LSES) and 15 patients from medium/high socioeconomic status (MHSES). The genomic profiling of gastric adenocarcinoma samples was done through the FoundationOne CDx platform. We compared the genomic characteristics and the need for targeted therapy and immunotherapy between LSES and MHSES. The genes with higher rates of alterations were TP53 (73.3% vs. 50.0%, P = 0.2635); CDH1 (26.7% vs. 28.6%, P = 1); CDKN2A (20.0% vs. 28.6%, P = 1); KRAS (33.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.1686); ARID1A (20.0% vs. 14.3%, P = 1); MLL2 (13.3% vs. 21.4%, P = 1) and SOX9 (33.3% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.0421) in LSES versus HMSES, respectively. There was no significant difference in tumor mutational burden (P = 0.377) or microsatellite status (P = 1). The LSES group had a higher need for targeted therapy or immunotherapy according to gene involvement and alterations. A significant genomic difference exists among patients with gastric adenocarcinoma of different socioeconomic status, which may result in a different need for targeted therapy and immunotherapy.
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
- Socioeconomic disparities and the genomic landscape of gastric cancer
- Date Crossref
- 02/07/2024
- 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.