
MOLECULAR GENETIC ABNORMALITIES
OF HEAD AND NECK CANCER
Koynova D* *Corresponding Author: Denitsa Koynova, Department of Medical Genetics, Institute of Obstetrics and Gynecol¬ogy, Medical University of Sofia, 2 Zdrave Str., 1431 Sofia, Bulgaria; Tel.: +359-2-952-03-57; Fax: +359-2-952-03-57; E-mail: dkkoiniva@hotmail.com page: 45
|
GENETIC ABNORMALITIES OF PROTO-ONCOGENES
The 11q13 Region. It has been estimated that amplification of the 11q13 region is one of the most common genetic abnormality of HNSCC. There are four genes located in this region, CCND1, FGF3, FGF4 and EMS1, of which CCND1 has been widely analyzed. The product of the CCND1 gene, cyclin D1 phosphorylates the Rb protein, which leads to a progression of the cell cycle. The activity of cyclin D can be suppressed by a number of tumor suppressor genes such as p16, p21 and p27. It has been estimated that amplification of CCND1 is more often encountered in carcinomas of the pharynx than in tumors of the larynx and the oral cavity [2]. This amplification is a precious prognostic marker, associated with nodal metastases, advanced tumor stage, a greater possibility for recurrence, as well as worse survival rates for patients with oral cavity tumors or pharynx tumors [3,4]. Using the fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) method, it has been determined that the percentage of amplification is 36% [4]. It has also been proved that the overexpression of cyclin D1 and 11q13 rearrangements are independent prognostic markers in the development of HNSCC. DNA-amplification leads to overexpression of the gene product, cyclin D1, but it is considered that additional genetic mechanisms in proximity to 11q13 also play a role in tumor initiation [3,5].
The c-myc Oncogene. Another important prognostic marker is the expression of c-myc oncogene, located at the 8q24 region. This abnormality is connected with a shorter survival [6] and a lack of association with the grade and stage of tumor progression [2]. It is considered that a genetic abnormality in more than one gene is an even worse prognostic marker [4]. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to analyze the copy number of the frequently amplified oncogenes CCND1 and c-myc in relation to the commonly deleted tumor suppressor gene p16 to evaluate the clinical significance. Enhanced gene ratio was detected in both cases. Furthermore, enhancement of c-myc:p16 was associated with a shorter disease-free interval as a result of the development of recurrences or metastases [7]. Analysis of head and neck tumors shows that a higher rate of amplification, that is more of a co-amplification between c-myc and CENP-F (centromere protein-F), is observed in larynx tumors. Co-amplification has been proved in 7% of a total of 71 tumor materials, most of which display nodal metastases [8]. There has been no evidence of correlation between CENP-F and clinical pathological parameters, but there is such evidence in the nodal metastases.
The erbB Oncogene. The activation of the erbB oncogenes has been documented with a number of tumors, including HNSCC. These genes include erbB-1, whose product EGFR is a transmembrane protein with tyrosine-kinase activity. Overexpression of EGFR has been found in a high percentage of HNSCC, accounting for a bad prognostic marker [4], connected with nodal metastases. It is characteristic of low differentiated tumors. There has been no correlation found between EGFR overexpression and recurrence of the disease or survival. EGFR activation leads to activation of STAT (tyrosine-kinase system), the proteins that initiate the process of cell proliferation [9]. It is considered that overexpression of the products of these genes is characteristic for HNSCC, but the link between STAT activity and survival is yet to be proved.
The high rate of EGFR overexpression in HNSCC (80-100%) gives an opportunity for the development of modern biological treatment against the receptors. “We are in a very exciting time in the treatment of head and neck cancer...” Now we can utilize a variety of therapeutic strategies: surgery, radiation, gene therapy, molecular targeted therapy, and chemoprevention. We now have the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the Marines,” said Professor Dong Moon Shin, co-director of the Head and Neck Cancer Program at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA [10].
Several approaches to block the EGFR in HNSCC have been investigated, including small molecules and monoclonal antibodies. Gefitinib (Iressa) and Cetuximab are a new class of anti-cancer therapy that targets the EFGR receptor. Gefitinib (Iressa) is a small molecule which inhibits the EGFR (tyrosine kinase through competitive binding to the ATP) binding site. Cetuximab is a human-chimeric monoclonal antibody, which binds competitively to the extracellular receptor site to prevent binding by EGFR ligands [11].
The other widely analyzed gene belonging to the same gene family is the proto-oncogene erbB-2/HER2-NEU. The overexpression of its product is connected with a shorter survival. It is also associated with a low expression of the gene product p27 during analysis of tumors of the oral cavity and the oropharynx. It is considered that the overexpression of this member of the receptor-tyrosine kinase family is a bad prognostic marker of HNSCC. Application of immunohistochemistry showed overexpression of the HER2-product and FISH analysis showed amplification of the gene. The results display a lack of connection between HER2 and the tumor stage, tumor development and survival [12]. Due to the low amplification level of the HER2 gene in HNSCC, the application of Herceptin (monoclonal antibody) therapy would be restricted to a small group of patients [2].The expression of the third representative, erbB-3, was studied with the help of PCR-technology and amplification of the gene was not detected [13].
The highest rate of amplification of ZNF217 (zincfinger protein coding protein) has been found in primary tumors of the oral cavity. The combination of the FISH method with the tissue microarray technology has given a new impetus to the study and analysis of the oncogene amplification of HNSCC. A total of five oncogenes were analyzed in this manner: 34.5% amplification for CCND1 (cyclin D1), 8.8% for c-myc, 12.7% for erbB1/EGFR, 3.6% for erbB-2/HER2-NEU and 6.2% ZNF217 [2]. The combination of immunohistochemistry with tissue microarrays allowed for the analysis of a range of proteins like cyclin D1, p53, p16, cdk4, bcl2 and mdm2. After the use of the tissue microarrays and FISH techniques for analyzing the described oncogenes, it was concluded that single oncogene amplification could not be acknowledged to be a reliable marker for the prognosis of the outcome of the disease, yet it does influence tumor development [2].
Fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis of the 7q22-31.1 region has proved a numerical aberration of the number of copies of chromosome 7, as well as a parallel increase of signals in a gene called MPP11. These results suggest that this oncogene has significant influence on tumor initiation and progression [14]. There was amplification in the 3q25.3 region, and specifically of gene ania 6a (cyclin L), which appears as a candidate oncogene for the development of HNSCC when a comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) method was used on tissue microarrays [15]. The amplification of region 3q26-q27 is also considered to be an important prognostic marker [16]. The only head and neck tumors with constitutive ras activation are from Indian and Taiwanese patients which can harbor H-ras and K-ras gene mutations [17]. The AIS (amplified in squamous carcinoma) gene has been proposed as the main oncogenic target in head and neck squamous carcinomas, and is a promising line for future investigations [5].
|
|
|
|



 |
Number 27 VOL. 27 (2), 2024 |
Number 27 VOL. 27 (1), 2024 |
Number 26 Number 26 VOL. 26(2), 2023 All in one |
Number 26 VOL. 26(2), 2023 |
Number 26 VOL. 26, 2023 Supplement |
Number 26 VOL. 26(1), 2023 |
Number 25 VOL. 25(2), 2022 |
Number 25 VOL. 25 (1), 2022 |
Number 24 VOL. 24(2), 2021 |
Number 24 VOL. 24(1), 2021 |
Number 23 VOL. 23(2), 2020 |
Number 22 VOL. 22(2), 2019 |
Number 22 VOL. 22(1), 2019 |
Number 22 VOL. 22, 2019 Supplement |
Number 21 VOL. 21(2), 2018 |
Number 21 VOL. 21 (1), 2018 |
Number 21 VOL. 21, 2018 Supplement |
Number 20 VOL. 20 (2), 2017 |
Number 20 VOL. 20 (1), 2017 |
Number 19 VOL. 19 (2), 2016 |
Number 19 VOL. 19 (1), 2016 |
Number 18 VOL. 18 (2), 2015 |
Number 18 VOL. 18 (1), 2015 |
Number 17 VOL. 17 (2), 2014 |
Number 17 VOL. 17 (1), 2014 |
Number 16 VOL. 16 (2), 2013 |
Number 16 VOL. 16 (1), 2013 |
Number 15 VOL. 15 (2), 2012 |
Number 15 VOL. 15, 2012 Supplement |
Number 15 Vol. 15 (1), 2012 |
Number 14 14 - Vol. 14 (2), 2011 |
Number 14 The 9th Balkan Congress of Medical Genetics |
Number 14 14 - Vol. 14 (1), 2011 |
Number 13 Vol. 13 (2), 2010 |
Number 13 Vol.13 (1), 2010 |
Number 12 Vol.12 (2), 2009 |
Number 12 Vol.12 (1), 2009 |
Number 11 Vol.11 (2),2008 |
Number 11 Vol.11 (1),2008 |
Number 10 Vol.10 (2), 2007 |
Number 10 10 (1),2007 |
Number 9 1&2, 2006 |
Number 9 3&4, 2006 |
Number 8 1&2, 2005 |
Number 8 3&4, 2004 |
Number 7 1&2, 2004 |
Number 6 3&4, 2003 |
Number 6 1&2, 2003 |
Number 5 3&4, 2002 |
Number 5 1&2, 2002 |
Number 4 Vol.3 (4), 2000 |
Number 4 Vol.2 (4), 1999 |
Number 4 Vol.1 (4), 1998 |
Number 4 3&4, 2001 |
Number 4 1&2, 2001 |
Number 3 Vol.3 (3), 2000 |
Number 3 Vol.2 (3), 1999 |
Number 3 Vol.1 (3), 1998 |
Number 2 Vol.3(2), 2000 |
Number 2 Vol.1 (2), 1998 |
Number 2 Vol.2 (2), 1999 |
Number 1 Vol.3 (1), 2000 |
Number 1 Vol.2 (1), 1999 |
Number 1 Vol.1 (1), 1998 |
|
|