Skip to main content
  • Minireview
  • Published:

Soft Tissue Sarcomas and p53 Mutations

Introduction

Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are malignant tumors of mesenchymal origin. Despite the fact that soft tissues and bone comprise almost two-thirds the mass of the human body, sarcomas are relatively rare, with an incidence of about 1% (1). They represent a large, histologically diverse group of tumor entities, with a biological behavior difficult to predict, and they prove rather resistant to irradiation and/or chemotherapy (1). Clinical-pathological characteristics are well recognized as prognostic factors; these include grading (2,3), tumor entity (46), tumor localization (5,7), and tumor size (79). However, a correlation between tumor characteristics and behavior of STS is not always possible; large tumors can be associated with several relapses and are difficult to operate but exhibit no metastases; small tumors without relapses may be easy to operate but they metastasize quickly. Therefore, a reliable prognostic evaluation for individual STS patients and their individualized treatment is still awaited.

Tumorigenesis has been understood as a multistep process for 40 years (10). In 1989, molecular alterations were unraveled as the basis for carcinogenesis (11,12). These alterations occur in a number of genes involved in the control of cell proliferation, cell differentiation, and cell death (13). Two groups of genes in particular, tumor suppressor genes (TSG) and oncogenes, are affected. Oncogenes encode for proteins that are mostly elements of the signal transduction chain of growth factors, whereas TSG are translated into proteins with growth-inhibitory and differentiation-inducing functions (11,14). Mutations in both gene groups add up to a number of critical events in a malignant tumor (13,15).

Besides the retinoblastoma gene (Rb), one of the most prominent tumor suppressor genes is p53. The p53 protein controls central physiological processes such as transcription, cell cycle arrest, DNA repair, chromosomal segregation, genomic stability (the so-called guardian of the genome), cell differentiation, and apoptosis (1620). Altogether, an incidence of p53 mutations in about 50% of malignant neoplasias strongly suggests diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications for malignancies (21,22).

However, knowledge about the prognostic relevance of p53 mutations in STS is not comprehensive (23). This review will not cover p53 germ-line mutations (recently reviewed in ref. 24), but it will focus on somatic p53 mutations, their distribution in different STS entities, and their prognostic relevance for individual patients with STS.

Frequency in Different STS Entities

Differences in the frequency of p53 mutations could lend weight to a role of p53 alterations in tumorigenesis in different STS entities. Altogether, a mutational rate of about 16% in STS is reliable, based on data of 142 p53 mutations from a data bank and recent publications (2528). The diverse entities of sarcomas can be divided into two groups: (1) STS with a p53 mutational frequency of <5%, and (2) those STS with a mutational rate of >10%. The former group includes synovial sarcoma, fibrosarcoma and neuroblastoma; the latter consists of the other compiled STS (Table 1).

Table 1 Frequency of p53 mutations in different STS reported through 1997

The frequencies of p53 mutations in the latter group suggest a considerable importance of p53 mutions in its tumorigenesis. This is supported by the frequent occurrence of sarcomas (24%) in patients with p53 germ-line mutations (29,30).

Localization of the Mutation

Localization of p53 mutations is of interest because most of the tumor-related mutations in carcinomas are detected in the core domain (amino acids 120 to 292), which contains mutational hot spots (codons 175, 245, 248, 249, 273, 282) (31). Although this finding is reasoned partially by a concentration on this region in mutational analyses, this region involves the residues structurally and functionally engaged in p53-DNA interaction that is essential for its function as transcription factor (32,33). Furthermore, prognostic findings show that mutations within the highly conserved domains are inherently more aggressive than mutations outside these domains (34,35). A search for tumor-specific mutational hot spots could give insight into tumor origin and allow a more efficient diagnostic screening. Codon 249 is recognized as the mutational hot spot for hepatocellular carcinomas in combination with aflatoxin B (3638). Radon-specific mutations in codon 249 have been suggested by some investigators (39,40), but these have not been confirmed by others (41,42). Furthermore, a direct correlation between binding of cigarette smoke carcinogen derivates (benzo[a]pyrene diol epoxide) to p53 gene (guanine of codons 157, 248 and 273) and p53 mutations provides a direct ethiological link between a defined chemical carcinogen and lung cancer (43). Results from a study on the therapeutic implications of mutational localization indicate that de novo doxorubicin resistance is related to p53 mutations (in the zinc-binding region) (44).

In STS, specific mutational regions are not obvious. However, as an increasing number of mutations for p53 has been reported the described mutational hot spots have also started to crystallize for STS (Fig. 1). Until now, about one-fifth (29/142; 20.4%) of the known p53 mutations in STS concern mutational hot spots linked to carcinomas and lymphomas (45).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Distribution frequency of p53 mutations in STS. All codons with p53 mutations are compiled. Six mutational hot spots described for carcinomas and lymphomas are numbered above the columns.

In addition to investigation of the core domain for p53 mutations, attention has focused on adjacent N- and C-terminal regions. The transactivation domain (amino acids 1 to 42) is located N-terminally and mutations there abrogate transcriptional activation (46). Furthermore, a proline-rich region (amino acids 61 to 94) capable of interacting with SH3 domains (Src homology domain 3) is important for binding to the oncogene c-Abl, which is induced after DNA damage and involved in p53 activation and cell-cycle arrest (19). Mutations in this region reduce the ability of the p53 protein to mediate apoptosis or cell-cycle arrest (47). The oligomerization domain and the nucleus localization signals are located C-terminally and mutations disturb protein assembly. In STS, only four mutations with a location in the N-terminal region (48,49) and two mutations for the C-terminal portion are described (48,50), pointing to an underestimation of mutational events and the necessity of further studies in these regions.

Kind of Mutation

The kind of mutation can give insight into the functional properties of the protein affected. For p53, which acts as a tetrameric protein, point mutations are characteristic (21,31,45,25), whereas in adenomatous polyposis gene (APC), which is a monomeric tumor suppressor protein, deletions and insertions are frequent (51). In p53, a single-point mutation can act dominant negatively affecting the DNA-binding and transcriptional transactivation function of the wild-type protein (5254). Knowledge of the kind of mutation may also allow a correlation of mutation spectra to specific damaging agents, as was shown for ultraviolet (UV) radiation, with specific tandem CC to TT transitions (55), or for tobacco-associated cancers, which are associated with prevalent G:C to T:A transversions (45).

In STS, the majority of mutations are, as expected, point mutations (88%), including missense mutations (73%), nonsense mutations (8%), splice mutations (4%), and silent mutations (3%), followed by deletions (9%) and insertions or duplications (3%). Most of the point mutations are G:C (C:G) to A:T (T:A) transitions (64%), followed by G:C (C:G) to T:A (A:T) transversions (21%) and A:T (T:A) to G:C (C:G) transitions (17%). More than half of the former transitions (56%) occur at CpG sites, accounting for a quarter of all known p53 mutations in STS (25). It is assumed that endogenous rather than exogenous mechanisms are responsible for mutations at CpG sites. CpGs are often methylated (5-methylcytosine) and sites for de-amination occur spontaneously or are induced by oxygen radicals or nitric oxides (5658). Resulting mutations at these sites are less recognized and repaired (59), which supports the hypothesis of Cooper and Youssoufian (60) that mutations in CpG sites are a presumptive cause for human diseases.

Type of Mutation and Prognosis

Besides the correlation between localization and prognostic implications, it appears useful to correlate the type of p53 mutation with prognosis (49). In previous studies we demonstrated that STS patients with tumors possessing non-frameshift mutations showed a considerably poorer prognosis than patients without p53 mutations. In a multivariate Cox-Regression model for the former patients, an increased risk for tumor-caused death of 2.42 (p = 0.014) was calculated. In contrast, for patients with tumors bearing frameshift mutations (and still a detectable wild-type allele), prognosis seemed to be unaffected (49). Furthermore, a relationship between mutation type and occurrence of relapses and lymph node metastases was obvious. About one-half of patients with tumors carrying non-frameshift mutations developed relapses and/or lymph node metastases. All except one patient with frameshift mutation tumors were not affected by further tumor occurrence. A comparably increased frequency of relapses at the presence of p53 mutations (unfortunately without interpretation of mutation type) is reported for head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (61).

A possible explanation for this mutational behavior could be that, in the case of non-frameshift mutations, a mutated p53 protein may have a dominant negative effect on wild-type p53 (54), whereas in the case of frame-shift mutations, a truncated or missing mutated p53 protein might not affect the wild-type protein (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Model investigating how mutational status affects p53 DNA-binding function. This model suggests that p53 mutation type can affect p53 protein assembling and therefore functional characteristics of DNA binding. Frameshift mutations (fs) result in a shortened or missing protein that is unable to oligomerize with the wild-type protein. As long as a wild-type protein is still present, it could function on a reduced dosage (left section). Presence of a non-frameshift mutation (non-fs) causes a mutant protein that can oligomerize. In addition to a functional loss because of the mutation other possibilities are described that are dependent on the mutational sites and events. The mutant protein can oligomerize with wild-type protein, thereby exerting a dominant negative effect at binding to the normal DNA binding sites or gain a new function at binding to other (altered) DNA binding sites. Alternatively, it can bind to another mutant p53, giving rise to a gain-of-function protein (right section). Furthermore, changed protein conformation could alter transactivation properties of other proteins.

Are p53 Mutations an Early or Late Event and Do They Contribute to Further Development of Cancer?

In a number of tumors, p53 mutations are often considered an early event because of their occurrence in early-stage tumors and precursor lesions, as in cancers of the lung, head and neck, breast, brain, and esophagus. However, in cancers of endometrium, cervix, ovary, liver, and bladder and in chondrosarcomas, p53 mutations have been detected in a rather advanced stage (45,6264).

In STS, no precursor lesions are known, except for malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors (MPNST) that can develop from neurofibromas (1). Therefore, in STS the distinction between early and late events seems inapplicable. However, p53 mutations were detected in both lower- and higher-grade STS (26,65,66).

We found a tendency of a somewhat earlier appearance of STS with p53 mutations (average age 59 years) versus the usually described maximum at 64 years, but differences in the mean age of occurrence depending on the STS entity are well known (1,67). Furthermore, in three informative cases we detected the same p53 mutation in the primary tumor and in the lymph node metastasis, which suggests a mutational event preceeding metastasis. Altogether, the early-aged occurrence of sarcomas with the presence of germ-line mutations points toward p53 mutations as an initial event in sarcomagenesis (24).

Importance of p53 Mutations in Clinical Practice

There is evidence from in vitro studies and from clinical approaches that p53 status is a crucial factor for successful treatment of malignancies. It has been shown that cells with mutated p53 or without p53 react less sensitively to radiation or chemotherapy (6871) and cytotoxicity of adjuvant therapies depends considerably on p53-dependent apoptosis (72,73). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that tumors with no p53 mutations (testicular teratocarcinoma) or most often, with wild-type p53 (acute lymphoblastic leukemias) respond well to chemotherapeutic treatment. Tumors with high mutational rates for p53 (melanoma, lung cancer, colorectal tumors, and bladder and prostate cancer) often respond poorly to radiation and chemotherapy (19). This is not always the case, however, and it is not merely a simple relationship between p53 status and therapy response, because there are also reports of tumors with p53 defects that react (more) sensitively to radiation and chemotherapy (7477). Additionally, in vitro studies have shown that a loss of p53 function may influence apoptosis ability, depending on the type of tumor cells and radiation dosage (7880). In recent studies, 60 cell lines (40 with p53 mutations) were investigated for the effect of radiation (6.3 or 12 Gy) and that of 123 types of chemotherapy on cell growth inhibition and the induction of target genes. The majority of the p53-mutated cell lines showed a decrease in growth inhibition and target gene activation in comparison to the p53 wild-type cell lines, suggesting a p53-mediated influence on treatment efficacy. Noticeably, only chemotherapeutic treatments (Paclitaxel, Vincristin, and Vinblastin) acting antimitotically could result in growth inhibition independent of the p53 status (81). Interestingly, the cells in one case with p53 mutation and with an increased chemosensitivity were treated with Paclitaxel (77).

However, the STS patients with non-frame-shift mutations bearing tumors had an increased risk of dying because of their tumor, independent of irradiation and/or chemotherapeutic treatment. We suggest that such patients be excluded from p53-dependent therapies. The relationship of p53 mutations and prognosis, including a p53-independent therapy for these patients, needs to be studied prospectively.

In STS, additional gene alterations, especially in the hmdm-2 oncogene (human homologue to the mouse double minute gene), are important for tumorigenesis. Mdm2 interacts with p53 in an autoregulatory feedback loop (82,83). Mdm2 gene amplifications are observed in about 30% of sarcomas (84,85). Alternative-spliced mdm2 transcripts mostly missing the p53 binding site occur exclusively in human cancers, but not in normal tissues. Additionally, the frequency of these altered transcripts correlates with the tumor grade and stage (86). In our group of patients with STS we were able to show that an Mdm2 overexpression, detected immunohistochemically, predicts a very poor prognosis, dependent on and independent of p53 (87,88).

These results point to the necessity of considering molecular alterations in the multistep process of cancer, such as p53 mutations and mdm2 alterations, in future molecular genetic therapies for STS and other malignancies.

References

  1. Enzinger FM, Weiss SW. (1995) Soft Tissue Tumors. Mosby, St. Louis, MO.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Coindre JM, Trojani M, Contesso G, et al. (1986) Reproducibility of a histopathologic grading system for adult soft tissue sarcoma. Cancer 58: 306–309.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Van Unnik JAM, Coindre JM, Contesso G, et al. (1988) In: Ryan JR, Baker LO (eds). Experience of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Treatment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 7–13.

  4. Markhede G, Angervall L, Stener B. (1982) A multivariate analysis of the prognosis after surgical treatment of malignant soft tissue tumors. Cancer 49: 1721–1733.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brennan MF, Casper ES, Harrison LB, Shiu MH, Gaynor J, Hajdu SI. (1991) The role of multimodality therapy in soft-tissue sarcoma. Ann. Surg. 214: 328–338.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Singer S, Corson JM, Gonin R, Labow B, Eberlein TJ. (1994) Prognostic factors predictive of survival and local recurrence for extremity soft tissue sarcoma. Ann. Surg. 219: 165–173.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Singer S, Corson JM, Demetri GD, Healey EA, Marcus K, Eberlein TJ. (1995) Prognostic factors predictive of survival for truncal and retroperitoneal soft tissue sarcoma. Ann. Surg. 221: 185–195.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Suit HD, Mankin HJ, Wood WC, et al. (1988) Treatment of the patient stage MO soft tissue sarcoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 6: 854.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Coindre JM, Terrier P, Bui NB, et al. (1996) Prognostic factors in adult patients with locally controlled soft tissue sarcoma: a study of 546 patients from the French Federation of Cancer Centers Sarcoma Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 14: 869–877.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Foulds L. (1958) The natural history of cancer. J. Chronic Dis. 8: 2–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Weinberg RA. (1989) Oncogenes, antioncogenes, and the molecular basis of multistep carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 49: 3713–3721.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bishop JM. (1989) The molecular genetics of cancer. Science 235: 305–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW. (1993) The multistep nature of cancer. Trends Genet. 9: 138–141.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hahn SA, Kern SE, Schmiegel W-H. (1997) Neue molekularbiologische Erkenntnisse aus der Pankreaskarzinom-Forschung. Dt. Ärztebl. 94: 2440–2446.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fearon ER, Vogelstein B. (1990) A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell 61: 759–767.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Harris CC. (1996a) Structure and function of the p53 tumor suppressor gene: Clues for rational cancer therapeutic strategies. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 88: 1442–1455.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gottlieb MG, Oren M. (1996) p53 in growth control and neoplasie. Biochem. Biophys. Acta 1287: 77–102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ozbun M, Butel JS. (1995) Tumorsuppressor p53 mutations and breast cancer: a critical analysis. Adv. Cancer Res. 66: 71–141.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Levine AJ. (1997) p53, the cellular gatekeeper for growth and division. Cell 88: 323–331.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Almog N, Rotter V. (1997) Involvement of p53 in cell differentiation and development. Biochem. Biophys. Acta 1333: F1–27.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hollstein M, Sidransky D, Vogelstein B, Harris CC. (1991) p53 mutations in human cancers. Science 253: 49–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Harris CC, Hollstein M. (1993) Clinical implications of the p53 tumor-suppressor gene. N. Engl. J. Med. 329: 1318–1327.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cordon-Cardo C, Latres E, Drobnjak M, et al. (1994) Molecular abnormalities of mdm2 and p53 genes in adult soft tissue sarcomas. Cancer Res. 54: 794–799.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kleihues P, Schäuble B, zur Hausen A, Esteve J, Ohgaki H (1997) Tumors associated with p53 germline mutations. A synopsis of 91 families. Am. J. Pathol. 150: 1–13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hainaut P, Soussi T, Shomer B, et al. (1997) Database of p53 gene somatic mutations in human tumors and cell lines: updated compilation and future prospects. Nucl. Acids Res. 25: 151–157.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Roessner A, Schneider-Stock R, Radig K, Neumann W, Mittler U. (1997) Alterations of p53 gene in soft tissue and bone tumors. Genet. Diagn. Pathol. 143: 1–13.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Taubert H, Schmidt H, Würl P, et al. (1997) Morphological and molecular characterization of an undifferentiated soft tissue sarcoma cell line and derivative clones. Int. J. Oncol. 11: 521–526.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Yoo J, Lee HK, Kang C, Park WS, Lee JY, Shim SI. (1997) p53 mutations and p53 expression in human soft tissue sarcomas. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 121: 395–399.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Malkin D, Li FP, Strong LC, et al. (1990) Germ line p53 mutations in a familial syndrome of breast cancer, sarcomas, and other neoplasms. Science 250: 1233–1238.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Malkin D, Jolly KW, Barbier N, et al. (1992) Germline mutations of the p53 tumor-suppressor gene in children and young adults with second malignant neoplasms. N. Engl. J. Med. 326: 1309–1315.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Levine AJ. (1993) The p53 tumor suppressor gene and product. Biol. Chem. Hoppe-Seyler 374: 227–235.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Cho Y, Gorina S, Jeffrey PD, Pavletich NP. (1994) Crystal structure of a p53 tumor suppressor-DNA complex: understanding tumorigenic mutations. Science 265: 346–355.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Prives C. (1994) How loops, sheets, and helices help us to understand p53. Cell 78: 543–546.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bergh J, Norberg T, Sjögren S, Lindgren A, Holmberg L. (1995) Complete sequencing of the p53 gene provides prognostic information in breast cancer patients, particularly in relation to adjuvant systemic therapy and radiotherapy. Nature Med. 1: 1029–1034.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Goh HS, Yao J, Smith DR. (1995) P53 point mutation and survival in colorectal cancer patients. Cancer Res. 55: 5217–5221.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Hsu IC, Metcalf RA, Sun T, Welsh JA, Wang NJ, Harris CC (1991) Mutational hotspot in the p53 gene in human hepatocellular carcinomas. Nature 350: 427–428.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Aguilar F, Hussain SP, Cerutti P. (1993) Aflatoxin B1 induces the transversion of G to T in codon 249 of the p53 tumor suppressor gene in human hepatocytes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 90: 8586–8590.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Hollstein MC, Wild CP, Bleicher F, et al. (1993) p53 mutations and aflatoxin B exposure in hepatocellular carcinoma patients from Thailand. Int. J. Cancer 53: 51–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Taylor JA, Watson MA, Devereux TR, Michels RY, Saccomanno G, Anderson M. (1994) p53 mutation hotspot in radon associated lung cancer. Lancet 343: 86–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hussain SP, Kennedy CH, Amstad P, Liu H, Lechner JF, Harris CC (1996) Radon and lung carcinogenesis mutability of p53 codons 249 and 250 to 238Pu alpha particles in human bronchial epithelial cells. Carcinogenesis 18: 121–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bartsch H, Hollstein M, Mustonen R, et al. (1995) Screening for putative radon-specific p53 mutation hotspot in German uranium miners. Lancet 346: 121.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hollstein M, Bartsch H, Wesch H, et al. (1997) p53 mutation analysis in tumors of patients exposed to a-particles. Carcinogenesis 18: 511–516.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Denissenko MF, Pao A, Tang M, Pfeifer GP. (1996) Preferential formation of benzo(a)pyrene adducts at lung cancer mutational hotspots in p53. Science 274: 430–432.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Aas T, Borresen AL, Geisler S, et al. (1996) Specific p53 mutations are associated with de novo resistance to doxorubicin in breast cancer patients. Nature Med. 2: 811–813.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Greenblatt MS, Bennett WP, Hollstein M, Harris CC (1994) Mutations in the p53 tumor suppressor gene: clues to cancer etiology and molecular pathogenesis. Cancer Res. 54: 4855–4878.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Lin J, Wu X, Chen J, Chang A, Levine AJ. (1995) Functions of the p53 protein in growth regulation and tumor suppression. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 59: 215–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Walker KK, Levine AJ. (1996) Identification of a novel p53 functional domain which is necessary for efficient growth suppression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93: 15335–15340.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Liu FS, Kohler MF, Marks JR, Bast RC, Boyd J, Berchuck A. (1994) Mutation and overexpression of the p53 tumor suppressor gene frequently occurs in uterine and ovarian sarcomas. Obstet. Gynecol. 83: 118–124.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Taubert H, Meye A, Würl P. (1996) Prognosis is correlated with p53 mutation type for soft tissue sarcoma patients. Cancer Res. 56: 4134–4136.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Castresana JS, Rubio MP, Gomez L, Kreicbergs A, Zetterberg A, Barrios C. (1995) Detection of TP53 gene mutations in human sarcomas. Eur. J. Cancer 1: 735–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Greenblatt MS, Grollman AP, Harris CC. (1996) Deletions and insertions in the p53 tumor suppressor gene in human cancers: confirmation of the DNA polymerase slippage/misalignment model. Cancer Res. 56: 2130–2136.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Milner J, Medcalf EA, Cook A. (1991) Tumor suppressor gene p53: analysis of wild-type and mutant p53 complexes. Mol. Cell. Biol. 11: 12–19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Shaulian E, Zauberman A, Ginsberg D, Oren M. (1992) Identification of a minimal transforming domain of p53: negative dominance through abrogation of sequence specific DNA-binding. Mol. Cell. Biol. 12: 5581–5592.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Dittmer D, Levine AJ. (1993) Gain function mutations in p53. Nat. Genet. 4: 42–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Dumaz N, Stary A, Soussi T, Daya-Grosjean L, Sarasin A. (1994) Can we predict solar ultraviolet radiation as the causal event in human tumors by analysing the mutation spectra of the p53 gene? Mutat. Res. 307: 373–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lindahl T, Nyberg B. (1974) Heat induced deamination of cytosine resiues in deoxyribonucleic acids. Biochemistry 13: 3405–3410.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Coulondre C, Miller JH, Farabough PJ, Gilbert W. (1978) Molecular basis of base substitution hotspots in Escherichia coli. Nature 274: 775–780.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Oshima H, Bartsch H. (1994) Chronic infections and inflammatory processes as cancer risk factors: possible role of nitric oxide in carcinogenesis. Mutat. Res. 305: 253–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Schmutte C, Yang AS, Beart RW, Jones PA. (1995) Base repair of U:G mismatches at hotspot in the p53 gene is more efficient than base excision repair of T:G mismatches in extracts of human colon tumors. Cancer Res. 55: 3742–3746.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Cooper DN, Youssoufian H. (1988) The CpG nucleotide and human genetic disease. Hum. Genet. 78: 151–158.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Koch WM, Brennan JA, Zahurak M, et al. (1996) p53 mutation and locoregional treatment failure in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 88: 1580–1586.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Miyamoto H, Shuin T, Ikeda I, Hosaka M, Kubota Y. (1997) Loss of heterozygosity at the p53, RB, DCC and APC tumor suppressor gene loci in human bladder cancer. J. Urol. 155: 1444–1447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Yamaguchi T, Toguchida J, Wadayama B, Kanoe H, Nakayama T, Ishizaki K, Ikenaga M, Kotoura Y, Sasaki MS. (1997) Loss of heterozygosity and tumor suppressor gene mutations in chondrosarcomas. Anticancer Res. 16: 2009–2015.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Montesano R, Hollstein M, Hainaut P. (1996) Genetic alterations in esophageal cancer and their relevance to ethiology and pathogenesis: a review. Int. J. Cancer 69: 225–235.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Taubert H, Würl P, Meye A, et al. (1995) Molecular and immunohistochemical p53 status in liposarcoma and malignant fibrous histiocytoma. Cancer 76: 1187–1196.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Würl P, Taubert H, Bache M, et al. (1996) Frequent occurrence of p53 mutations in rhabdomyosarcoma and leiomyosarcoma, but not in fibrosarcoma and malignant neural tumors. Int. J. Cancer 69: 317–323.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Gustafson P. (1994) Soft tissue sarcoma epidemiology and prognosis in 508 patients. Acta Orthop. Scand. 65: 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Lee JM, Bernstein A. (1993) p53 mutations increase resistance to ionizing radiation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 90: 5742–5746.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Lowe SW, Schmitt EM, Smith SE, Osborne BA, Jacks T. (1993) p53 is required for radiation-induced apoptosis in mouse thymocytes. Nature 362: 847–849.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Clarke AR, Purdie CA, Harrison DJ, et al. (1993) Thymocyte apoptosis induced by p53-dependent and independent pathways. Nature 362: 849–852.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Xia F, Wang YH, Tsang NM, Yandell DW, Kelsey KT, Liber HL. (1995) Altered p53 status correlates with differences in sensitivity to radiation-induced mutation and apoptosis in two closely related human lymphoblast lines. Cancer Res. 55: 12–15.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Lowe SW, Ruley HE, Jacks T, Housman DE. (1993) p53-dependent apoptosis modulates the cytotoxicity of anticancer agents. Cell 74: 957–967.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Lowe SW, Bodis S, McClatchey A, et al. (1994) p53 status and the efficacy of cancer therapy in vivo. Science 266: 807–810.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Slichenmyer WJ, Nelson WG, Slebos RJ, Kastan MB. (1993) Loss of a p53-associated G1 checkpoint does not decrease cell survival following DNA damage. Cancer Res. 55: 4164–4168.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Hawkins DD, Demers GW, Galloway D. (1996) Inactivation of p53 enhances sensitivity to multiple chemotherapeutic agents. Cancer Res. 56: 892–898.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Servomaa K, Kiuru A, Grenman R, Pekkola-Heino K, Pulkkinen JO, Rytomaa T. (1996) p53 mutations with increased sensitivity to ionizing radiation in human head and neck cancer cell lines. Cell Prolif. 29: 219–230.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Wahl AF, Donaldson KL, Fairchild C, Lee FYF, Foster SA, Demers GW, Galloway DA. (1996) Loss of normal p53 function confers sensitization to taxol by increasing G2/M arrest and apoptosis. Nature Med. 2: 72–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Han Z, Chatterjee D, He DM, Early J, Pantazis P, Wyche JH, Hendrickson EA. (1995) Evidence for a G2 checkpoint in p53-independent apoptosis induction by X-irradiation. Mol. Cell. Biol. 15: 5849–5857.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Bracey TS, Miller JC, Preece A, Parasevska C. (1995) Gamma-radiation-induced apoptosis in human colorectal adenoma and carcinoma cell line can occur in the absence of wild type p53. Oncogene 10: 2391–2396.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Merritt AJ, Allen TD, Potten CS, Hickman JA. (1997) Apoptosis in small intestinal epithelial from p53-null mice: evidence for delayed, p53-independent G2/M-associated cell death after gamma-irradiation. Oncogene 14: 2759–2766.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. O’Connor PM, Jackman J, Bae I, et al. (1997) Characterization of the p53 tumorsuppressor pathway in cell lines of the National Cancer Institute Anticancer Drug Screen and correlations with the growth-inhibitory potency of 123 anticancer agents. Cancer Res. 57: 4285–4300.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Barak Y, Juven T, Haffner R, Oren M. (1993) Mdm2 expression is induced by wild type p53 activity. EMBO J. 12: 461–468.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Wu X, Bayle H, Olson D, Levine AJ. (1993) The p53-mdm2 autoregularory feedback loop. Genes Dev. 7: 1126–1132.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Oliner JD, Kinzler KW, Meltzer PS, George DL, Vogelstein B. (1992) Amplification of a gene encoding a p53-associated protein in human sarcomas. Nature 358: 80–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Ladanyi M, Cha C, Lewis R, Jahnwar SC, Huvos AG, Healey JA. (1993) MDM2 gene amplification in metastatic osteosarcoma. Cancer Res. 53: 16–18.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Sigalas I, Calvert AH, Anderson JJ, Neal DE, Lunec J. (1996) Alternatively spliced mdm2 transcripts with loss of p53 binding domain sequences: transforming ability and frequent detection in human cancer. Nature Med. 2: 912–917.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Würl P, Meye A, Berger D, et al. (1997) Prognostic relevance of C-terminal MDM2 detection is enhanced by positivity in soft tissue sarcomas. Diagn. Mol. Pathol. 6: 249–254.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Würl P, Meye A, Schmidt H, et al. (1998) High prognostic significance of Mdm2/p53 co-overexpression in soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities. Oncogene 16: 1183–1185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. M. Hollstein for critical comments on the first version of this manuscript and Dr. C. Lautenschläger for helping in statistical evaluation and Dr. Th. Klonisch for editing. Furthermore, we acknowledge contributions and helpful discussions from our colleagues Dr. H.-J. Holzhausen, Dr. H. Schmidt, Dr. Raoul Hinze, M. Bache, and J. Kroll. We also appreciate the excellent technical work by Mrs. B. Wypior, A. Siemann, and M. Wolff. A. M. was supported by the Marianne-und-Dr.-Fritz-Walter-Fischer-Stiftung im Stifterverband für die Deutschen Wissenschaft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helge Taubert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Taubert, H., Meye, A. & Würl, P. Soft Tissue Sarcomas and p53 Mutations. Mol Med 4, 365–372 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03401743

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03401743

Keywords