Commentary on: SMARCB1 as a novel diagnostic and prognostic biomarker for osteosarcoma.
Biosci Rep 2022;
42:231313. [PMID:
35583077 PMCID:
PMC9202507 DOI:
10.1042/bsr20220040]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2022] [Revised: 05/12/2022] [Accepted: 05/16/2022] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
In the last couple of decades, biomarkers have been on the rise for diagnostic and predictive value. There has been a rush to identify new markers using new technologies and drug repurposing approaches. SMARCB1 acronym arises from the SWI/SNF (SWItch/Sucrose Non-Fermentable)-related Matrix-associated Actin-dependent Regulator of Chromatin subfamily B member 1 (SMARCB1). It is a molecule, whose role is associated with the sucrose metabolism. SMARCB1 is also called INI1 (Integrase Interactor 1). The molecule was discovered in the mid-1990s. Its role as a loss-of-function marker for malignant rhabdoid tumors (MRT) of renal and extrarenal origin has enormously expanded the spectrum of involved neoplasms since that time. Several tumors have been characterized by genetic aberrations in the SMARCB1 gene. They include reduction in expression, loss of expression, and mosaic expression. Most of the tumors are sarcomas, but a variegated group of tumors with mixed phenotypes has also been delineated. It is well known that the outcome of patients harboring genetic aberrations in the SMARCB1 gene has been poor. Guo et al. reported that reduced SMARCB1 expression occurred in 70% of osteosarcomas. Their data significantly correlated with poor neoadjuvant response. These authors emphasize a shorter progression-free and overall survival of the patients demonstrating an altered expression of this gene. Interestingly, mRNA in silico analysis established that SMARCB1 expression correlates with the response to chemotherapy of osteosarcoma patients, but there was no reliable correlation between SMARCB1 expression level and metastasis, response to neoadjuvant therapy, overall survival, and progression-free survival. The study involved a tissue microarray (TMA) on bone tumors that may limit the full evaluation of the gene expression. Nevertheless, Guo et al.’s study is remarkable. It expands the list of the tumors harboring an altered SMARCB1 gene expression and suggests that this marker should be investigated in every pathology workup for potential predictive value. On the other side, much work needs to be done if we hope that we strive to provide additional therapeutic strategies for osteosarcoma patients with altered SMARCB1 gene expression.
Collapse