Comparative Genomic Hybridization of Wilms’ tumor
Cytogenetic analysis of solid tumors including Wilms’ tumor is challenging due to poor chromosome morphology, complexity of abnormalities, and to the possibility of stromal cell overgrowth in tissue culture. Molecular cytogenetic techniques such as chromosomal comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) have improved the diagnosis of chromosomal aberrations in Wilms’ tumor since they can provide results based on the analysis of DNA from nondividing cells. However, chromosomal CGH provides only a limited resolution across the whole genome, which is not different than routine cytogenetic analysis (gains or losses of less than one chromosome band or 10 Mb are not detectable by routine cytogenetics or chromosomal CGH). More recently, the development of genomic arrays opened the possibility of assessing the whole genome at a much higher resolution at a sub-microscopic or sub-band level. Based on the principle of chromosomal CGH, this approach, frequently termed array-CGH, opens the possibility to find invisible changes at the whole genome level not only in abnormal but also in normal tumor karyotypes. Here, we discuss the main technical features, benefits, and limitations of the above three techniques as applied to Wilms’ tumor and summarize the main advances in our knowledge about the genetic changes of Wilms’ tumor and their clinical relevance.
Key wordsWilms’ tumor Nephroblastoma Kidney Pediatric Cancer Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) Array CGH Cytogenetics
The authors wish to thank the BC Children’s Hospital Telethon grant for funding the Wilms’ tumor chromosomal and array CGH study, Dr Dagmar Kalousek’s research laboratory for developing the chromosomal CGH method, and Dr Suzanne Chan, Chansonette Harvard, and Sally Martell for Wilms’ tumor cytogenetic, chromosomal, and array CGH analysis.
- 3.Jg G, Ml B (2006) Epidemiology of childhood cancer. Principles and practice of pediatric oncology, 5th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 4.Rance T (1814) Case of fungus haematodes of the kidneys. Med Phys J 32:19–25Google Scholar
- 5.Wilms M (1899) Die Mischgeschwülste der Niere. Leipzig: Verlag von Arthur Georgi; monograph, pp. 1–90.Google Scholar
- 14.Wiedeman H (1964) Familial malformation complex with umbilical hernia and macroglossia—a “new syndrome”? J Genet Hum 13:223–232Google Scholar
- 15.Beckwith J (1969) Macroglossia, omphalocele, adrenal cytomegally, gigantism, and hyperplastic visceromegaly. Birth Def 5:188–196Google Scholar
- 39.Williams R, Al-Saadi R, Natrajan R et al (2011) Molecular profiling reveals frequent gain of MYCN and anaplasia-specific loss of 4q and 14q in wilms tumor. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. doi: 10.1002/gcc.20907
- 42.Goldstein M, Rennert H, Bar-Shira A et al (2003) Combined cytogenetic and array-based comparative genomic hybridization analyses of wilms tumors: Amplification and overexpression of the multidrug resistance associated protein 1 gene (MRP1) in a metachronous tumor. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 141(2):120–127. doi: 10.1016/s0165-4608(02)00667-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar