Advertisement

Gastric Cancer

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 1024–1025 | Cite as

The adjacent to tumor sample trap

  • Paulo Pimentel de AssumpçãoEmail author
  • Sidney Emanuel Batista dos Santos
  • Ândrea Kely Campos Ribeiro dos Santos
  • Samia Demachki
  • André Salim Khayat
  • Geraldo Ishak
  • Danielle Queiroz Calcagno
  • Ney Pereira Carneiro dos Santos
  • Carolina Baraúna de Assumpção
  • Mônica Baraúna de Assumpção
  • Vinicius Albuquerque Sortica
  • Taíssa Maíra Thomaz Araújo
  • Fabiano Cordeiro Moreira
  • André Maurício Ribeiro dos Santos
  • Rommel Mario Rodríguez Burbano
Letter to the Editor

Keywords

Gastric Cancer Normal Sample Field Effect Cancer Sample Integral Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

To the Editor,

A cancer biomarker has one fundamental characteristic: to be different between normal and cancer cells.

Translating the use of biomarkers to clinical practice remains a challenge in oncology. A large number of these markers are proposed daily, but they are rarely consolidated as useful tools for clinicians. To favor this translation, innovative strategies are being attempted, including multicenter collaborative efforts.

Among these initiatives, The Cancer Genome Atlas has arisen as one of the most robust public data banks, because the commonest tumors were widely studied by rigorous methods.

Nevertheless, at least for gastric cancer, most of these investigations that search for relevant biomarkers, including The Cancer Genome Atlas, carry the potential bias of lacking true normal samples to compare with cancer samples. Most gastric cancer biomarkers discovered by molecular analysis resulted from comparisons between tumor samples and adjacent-to-tumor samples, which were considered normal samples [1, 2, 3, 4].

Although their appearance is normal, adjacent-to-tumor samples possess molecular alterations that are not sufficient to cause them to look like and be diagnosed as cancer tissue, but strongly differentiate them from true normal tissues.

Because most gastric cancer experiments to discover cancer biomarkers consider different expression patterns between cancer samples and adjacent-to-cancer samples instead of normal samples, important discrepancies could result from equivocal interpretations.

In 1953, Slaughter et al. [5] proposed the basic idea of the cancer field effect in an attempt to explain the occurrence of multiple cancers or cancer recurrence in a given organ. Many scientists have subsequently demonstrated that instead of being normal, tissue adjacent to tumor cells already exhibits genetic [6] and epigenetic [5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14] aberrations.

Searching for putative cancer biomarkers by comparing cancer samples with adjacent-to-cancer samples will most likely provide markers of progression from cancer fields to cancer, instead of resulting in the discovery of the earliest markers of cancer, because normal tissues are not compared.

According to the field effect hypothesis, this current strategy, although lacking the capability to identify initial events of carcinogenesis, provides robust information regarding the field effect phenomenon and is an important source of data to be incorporated into integral analyses that include cancer, adjacent-to-cancer, and normal samples. Nevertheless, the inclusion of normal samples from noncancer patients who were not exposed to the main carcinogens, such as Helicobacter pylori, would improve the ability to interpret carcinogenesis and, consequently, better translate the use of biomarkers to clinical practice.

For gastric cancer, addition of samples from noncancer patients to allow integral analysis of normal, cancer, and adjacent-to-cancer sample data is feasible because endoscopy is usually performed in noncancer patients. Thus, selecting adequate samples from volunteers seems reasonable, taking into account all ethical regulations.

Moreover, referring to adjacent-to-tumor samples as normal samples can lead to misinterpretations, including missing the identification of potential biomarkers expressed in both tumor and adjacent-to-tumor tissues in patterns different from those in true normal tissue. We can reasonably propose the addition of samples from noncancer patients, whenever accessible, to enhance the potential benefits of large multicenter cancer investigations.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) through grants and fellowship awards.

Compliance with ethical standards

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Chivu EM, Necula LG, Dragu D, Badea L, Dima SO, Tudor S, et al. Identification of potential biomarkers for early and advanced gastric adenocarcinoma detection. Hepatogastroenterology. 2010;57(104):1453–64.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bu Z, Zheng Z, Zhang L, Li Z, Sun Y, Dong B, et al. LGR5 is a promising biomarker for patients with stage I and II gastric cancer. Chin J Cancer Res. 2013;25(1):79–89. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.1000-9604.2013.01.07.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li P, Chen S, Chen H, Mo X, Li T, Shao Y, et al. Using circular RNA as a novel type of biomarker in the screening of gastric cancer. Clin Chim Acta. 2015;444:132–6. doi: 10.1016/j.cca.2015.02.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shimura T, Dagher A, Sachdev M, Ebi M, Yamada T, Yamada T, et al. Urinary ADAM12 and MMP-9/NGAL complex detect the presence of gastric cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2015;8(3):240–8. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-14-0229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Slaughter DP, Southwick HW, Smejkal W. Field cancerization in oral stratified squamous epithelium; clinical implications of multicentric origin. Cancer. 1953;6(5):963–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braakhuis BJ, Tabor MP, Kummer JA, Leemans CR, Brakenhoff RH. A genetic explanation of Slaughter’s concept of field cancerization: evidence and clinical implications. Cancer Res. 2003;63(8):1727–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eads CA, Lord RV, Kurumboor SK, Wickramasinghe K, Skinner ML, Long TI, et al. Fields of aberrant CpG island hypermethylation in Barrett’s esophagus and associated adenocarcinoma. Cancer Res. 2000;60(18):5021–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kondo Y, Kanai Y, Sakamoto M, Mizokami M, Ueda R, Hirohashi S. Genetic instability and aberrant DNA methylation in chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis–a comprehensive study of loss of heterozygosity and microsatellite instability at 39 loci and DNA hypermethylation on 8 CpG islands in microdissected specimens from patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2000;32(5):970–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Issa JP, Ahuja N, Toyota M, Bronner MP, Brentnall TA. Accelerated age-related CpG island methylation in ulcerative colitis. Cancer Res. 2001;61(9):3573–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Arai E, Kanai Y, Ushijima S, Fujimoto H, Mukai K, Hirohashi S. Regional DNA hypermethylation and DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) 1 protein overexpression in both renal tumors and corresponding nontumorous renal tissues. Int J Cancer. 2006;119(2):288–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maekita T, Nakazawa K, Mihara M, Nakajima T, Yanaoka K, Iguchi M, et al. High levels of aberrant DNA methylation in Helicobacter pylori infected gastric mucosae and its possible association with gastric cancer risk. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(3 Pt 1):989–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nakajima T, Maekita T, Oda I, Gotoda T, Yamamoto S, Umemura S, et al. Higher methylation levels in gastric mucosae significantly correlate with higher risk of gastric cancers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2006;15(11):2317–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nakajima T, Oda I, Gotoda T, Hamanaka H, Eguchi T, Yokoi C, et al. Metachronous gastric cancers after endoscopic resection: how effective is annual endoscopic surveillance? Gastric Cancer. 2006;9(2):93–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ushijima T. Epigenetic field for cancerization. J Biochem Mol Biol. 2007;40(2):142–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Gastric Cancer Association and The Japanese Gastric Cancer Association 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulo Pimentel de Assumpção
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sidney Emanuel Batista dos Santos
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ândrea Kely Campos Ribeiro dos Santos
    • 1
    • 2
  • Samia Demachki
    • 1
  • André Salim Khayat
    • 1
  • Geraldo Ishak
    • 1
  • Danielle Queiroz Calcagno
    • 1
  • Ney Pereira Carneiro dos Santos
    • 1
    • 2
  • Carolina Baraúna de Assumpção
    • 1
  • Mônica Baraúna de Assumpção
    • 1
  • Vinicius Albuquerque Sortica
    • 1
  • Taíssa Maíra Thomaz Araújo
    • 1
  • Fabiano Cordeiro Moreira
    • 2
  • André Maurício Ribeiro dos Santos
    • 2
  • Rommel Mario Rodríguez Burbano
    • 1
  1. 1.Oncology Research CenterFederal University of ParáBelémBrazil
  2. 2.Laboratory of Human and Medical GeneticsFederal University of ParáBelémBrazil

Personalised recommendations