Are there any differences when a surgeon takes tissue from secondary place (for example from metastasis) rather then from primary place (from an organ where cancer is) for morphological research?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
-
$\begingroup$ I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you speaking strictly about research purposes, or diagnostics? $\endgroup$– DrRandyApr 29, 2015 at 13:04
-
$\begingroup$ About research to determine if it's malignant tumor or not $\endgroup$– Aleko GharibashviliApr 29, 2015 at 13:07
-
$\begingroup$ Are you thinking about differences between a primary tumor and one which has already spreaded? I am not sure if I understand your question. $\endgroup$– Chris ♦Apr 29, 2015 at 20:33
-
$\begingroup$ Yes @Chris i'm thinking about that. $\endgroup$– Alexander GharibashviliApr 29, 2015 at 20:46
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
I would disagree a bit with the previous answer. There are absolutely differences between the metastasis and the primary tumor. One result of this is that people very rarely die of primary tumors, but rather from the metastases of those tumors. The primary tumors will be quite heterogeneous and contain largely cells that have not undergone steps necessary for migration like epithelial to mesenchymal transition. After cells have metastasized they will be separate from the original primary tumor, and contain unique genomes. Because this is the more 'progressed' group of cancer cells, these are often the cells that need to be targeted. So, determination of the proper treatment strategy should be done on the metastasized cells.
answered Apr 29, 2015 at 22:39
-
$\begingroup$ I'm not talking about treatment. I'm talking about taking metastasis for research to determine property of cancer. I mean determine whether cancer is malignant or not. $\endgroup$ Apr 30, 2015 at 8:01
-
$\begingroup$ Then you might be getting a little confused with terminology, if the cancer has metastasized it is malignant. $\endgroup$ Apr 30, 2015 at 14:43
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
By definition, a cancer which has spread to another site via the circulatory or the lymphatic system (called metastasis) is malignant. If a surgeon takes it from a secondary site, it is malignant.
In the past, there were times that a cancer was so undifferentiated that to determine it's source was not possible. As science (particularly genetics) and technology continue to advance, tissue of origin is more easily determined.
Are there any differences when a surgeon takes tissue from secondary place rather then from primary place for morphological research?
Theoretically, it seems as it shouldn't, but it can happen at times, because, for example, a carcinoma may contain a mixed population of cancer cells, while the metastatic tumor may be of only one type.
For research purposes - which is different from diagnostics - it depends on the features most desired for research purposes.
In the past, there were times that a cancer was so undifferentiated that to determine it's source was not possible. As science (particularly genetics) and technology continue to advance, tissue of origin
NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms
Multicenter Validation of a 1,550-Gene Expression Profile for Identification of Tumor Tissue of Origin
answered Apr 29, 2015 at 18:00
-
$\begingroup$ The surgeon said that it's not expedient to take a cell for research from pancreas ( there were Pancreatic Cancer ) and because it had already spread to a liver they took metastasis from a liver. Is it the right method of approach ? $\endgroup$– Aleko GharibashviliApr 29, 2015 at 19:34
-
$\begingroup$ I would ask this on Biology.SE, where there are many researchers. Shall I migrate it there? $\endgroup$ Apr 29, 2015 at 19:59
-
$\begingroup$ Yes please if possible. $\endgroup$– Aleko GharibashviliApr 29, 2015 at 20:04
-
$\begingroup$ @AlekoGharibashvili - Will do. Might take me a while because I'm a new mod. :) $\endgroup$ Apr 29, 2015 at 20:06