4.7 Article

VEGF polymorphisms and survival in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 856-862

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.5947

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [K12CA087723, CA074386, CA090578, CA092824] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Polymorphisms in the VEGF gene have been identified that are believed to have functional activity. We hypothesized that such polymorphisms may affect survival outcomes among early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Patients and Methods We evaluated the relationship between VEGF polymorphisms and overall survival (OS) among patients with early-stage NSCLC treated with surgical resection at Massachusetts General Hospital from 1992 to 2001. We specifically investigated the VEGF polymorphisms +936C>T (rs3025039), -460T>C (rs833061), and +405G>C (rs2010963). Analyses of genotype associations with survival outcomes were performed using Cox proportional hazards models, Kaplan-Meier methods, and the log-rank test. Results There were 462 patients and 237 deaths. Patients carrying the variant C allele of the VEGF +405G>C polymorphism had significantly improved survival (crude hazard ratio [HR] = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.90; P=.006; adjusted HR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.91; P=.008). Five-year OS for patients carrying the variant C allele of the VEGF +405G>C polymorphism was 61% (95% CI, 54% to 67%) versus 51% (95% CI, 43% to 59%) for those who had the wild-type variant. There was a trend toward improved survival among patients carrying the variant T allele of the VEGF +936C>T polymorphism (crude HR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53 to 1.03; P=.07; adjusted HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03; P=.07). Moreover, patients with higher number of variant alleles of the +405G>C and +936C>T polymorphisms had better survival. There was no association found with the -460T>C polymorphism. Conclusion Polymorphisms in VEGF may affect survival in early-stage lung cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据