Journal of Data Mining in Genomics & Proteomics

Genomic profiles and CRTC1-MAML2 fusion distinguish different subtypes of mucoepidermoid carcinoma

2^nd International Conference on Big Data Analysis and Data Mining

November 30-December 01, 2015 San Antonio, USA

Kowan Ja Jee, Marta Persson, Kristiina Heikinheimo, Fabricio Passador-Santos, Katri Aro, Sakari Knuutila, Edward W Odell, Antti Mäkitie, Kaarina Sundelin, Goran Stenman and Ilmo Leivo

University of Turku, Finland
University of Helsinki, Finland
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Turku University Hospital, Finland
Sao Leopoldo Mandic Institute and Cancer Research Center, Brazil
Helsinki University Hospit

Posters-Accepted Abstracts: J Data Mining Genomics Proteomics

Abstract:

Mucoepidermoid carcinoma is the most common salivary gland malignancy, and includes a spectrum of lesions ranging from non-aggressive low-grade tumors to aggressive high-grade tumors. To further characterize this heterogeneous group of tumors we have performed a comprehensive analysis of copy number alterations and CRTC1-MAML2 fusion status in a series of 28 mucoepidermoid carcinomas. The CRTC1-MAML2 fusion was detected by RT-PCR or fluorescence in situ hybridization in 18 of 28 mucoepidermoid carcinomas (64%). All 15 low-grade tumors were fusion-positive whereas only 3 of 13 high-grade tumors were fusion-positive. High-resolution array-based comparative genomic hybridization revealed that fusion-positive tumors had significantly fewer copy number alterations/tumor compared with fusion-negative tumors (1.5 vs. 9.5; P=0.002). Twelve of 18 fusion-positive tumors had normal genomic profiles whereas only 1 out of 10 fusion-negative tumors lacked copy number alterations. The profiles of fusion-positive and fusion-negative tumors were very similar to those of low- and high-grade tumors. Thus, low-grade mucoepidermoid carcinomas had significantly fewer copy number alterations/tumor compared with high-grade mucoepidermoid carcinomas (0.7 vs. 8.6; P<0.0001). The most frequent copy number alterations detected were losses of 18q12.2-qter (including the tumor suppressor genes DCC, SMAD4, and GALR1), 9p21.3 (including the tumor suppressor genes CDKN2A/B), 6q22.1-q23.1, and 8pter-p12.1, and gains of 8q24.3 (including the oncogene MAFA), 11q12.3-q13.2, 3q26.1-q28, 19p13.2-p13.11, and 8q11.1-q12.2 (including the oncogenes LYN, MOS, and PLAG1). On the basis of these results we propose that mucoepidermoid carcinoma may be subdivided in (i) low-grade, fusion-positive mucoepidermoid carcinomas with no or few genomic imbalances and favorable prognosis, (ii) high-grade, fusion-positive mucoepidermoid carcinomas with multiple genomic imbalances and unfavorable prognosis, and (iii) a heterogeneous group of high-grade, fusion-negative adenocarcinomas with multiple genomic imbalances and unfavorable outcome. Taken together, our studies indicate that molecular genetic analysis can be a useful adjunct to histologic scoring of mucoepidermoid carcinoma and may lead to development of new clinical guidelines for management of these patients.