Clonality, Mutation and Kaposi Sarcoma: A Systematic Review

Blanca Iciar Indave Ruiz, Subasri Armon, Reiko Watanabe, Lesley Uttley, Valerie A. White, Alexander J. Lazar, Ian A. Cree

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: It remains uncertain whether Kaposi sarcoma (KS) is a true neoplasm, in that it regresses after removal of the stimulus to growth (as HHV8) when immunosuppression is reduced. We aimed to summarize the available evidence on somatic mutations and clonality within KS to assess whether KS is a neoplasm or not. Methods: Medline and Web of Science were searched until September 2020 for articles on clonality or mutation in KS. Search strings were supervised by expert librarians, and two researchers independently performed study selection and data extraction. An adapted version of the QUADAS2 tool was used for methodological quality appraisal. Results: Of 3077 identified records, 20 publications reported on relevant outcomes and were eligible for qualitative synthesis. Five studies reported on clonality, 10 studies reported on various mutations, and 5 studies reported on chromosomal aberrations in KS. All studies were descriptive and were judged to have a high risk of bias. There was considerable heterogeneity of results with respect to clonality, mutation and cytogenetic abnormalities as well as in terms of types of lesions and patient characteristics. Conclusions: While KS certainly produces tumours, the knowledge is currently insufficient to determine whether KS is a clonal neoplasm (sarcoma), or simply an aggressive reactive virus-driven lesion.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number1201
JournalCancers
Volume14
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2022

Keywords

  • Clonality
  • DNA
  • HHV8
  • Kaposi
  • Reactive
  • Sarcoma

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Clonality, Mutation and Kaposi Sarcoma: A Systematic Review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this