Cargando…
Epstein-Barr Virus Infection in Gastric Remnant Carcinoma and Recurrent Gastric Carcinoma in Qingdao of Northern China
BACKGROUND: Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is associated with a subset of gastric carcinoma which was defined as EBV associated gastric carcinoma (EBVaGC). The proportion of EBVaGC in gastric remnant carcinoma (GRC) which occurs in the intact stomach five or more years after gastric surgery for benign dis...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4747509/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26859565 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148342 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is associated with a subset of gastric carcinoma which was defined as EBV associated gastric carcinoma (EBVaGC). The proportion of EBVaGC in gastric remnant carcinoma (GRC) which occurs in the intact stomach five or more years after gastric surgery for benign disease is significantly higher than that in conventional gastric carcinoma (CGC). The infection of EBV in recurrent gastric carcinoma (RGC) with local anastomotic recurrence is poorly understood. METHODS: 53 cases of GRC and 58 cases of RGC were analyzed for the presence of EBV, and the variants of EBV Encoded RNAs (EBER), EBV Nuclear Antigen 1 (EBNA1) and Latent Membrane Protein 1 (LMP1) gene in both groups were investigated. RESULTS: Thirteen (24.5%) out of 53 GRC cases and 3 (5.2%) out of 58 RGC cases were identified as EBVaGCs. In 17 paired RGC cases, only one case was classified as EBVaGC in both times specimen. Another one case was identified as EBVaGC in the primary gastroectomy specimen while the recurrent gastric cancer was not. The third EBVaGC in RGC was identified while the primary gastric cancer was not EBVaGC. In GRC and RGC cases, type 1, type F, EB-6m, V-val subtype, del-LMP1 were predominant type or variants, accounting for 10(76.9%) and 2(66.7%), 13(100%) and 3(100%), 13(100%) and 3(100%), 9(69.2%) and 3(100%), 12(92.3%) and 3(100%), respectively. However, Type C was the predominant type in GRC accounting for 9(69.2%) cases while type D was the predominant one accounting for 2(66.7%) cases in RGC. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of EBVaGc in GRC and RGC was significantly different. The distributions of these variants were similar to each other in the two groups which indicated that there were no more aggressive EBV variants in EBVaGC in GRC compared with that in RGC. |
---|