4.4 Article

ERCC1 predicts outcome in patients with gastric cancer treated with adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy

期刊

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 72, 期 1, 页码 159-165

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-013-2181-2

关键词

ERCC1; Cisplatin; Gastric; Adjuvant

资金

  1. Fondo di Ricerca Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adjuvant chemotherapy is gaining an increasing role in resectable gastric cancer. Customizing chemotherapy on the basis of chemosensitivity may improve outcome, and putative predictive molecular markers have been mostly evaluated in Asian patients. We profiled key DNA and damage signaling factors and correlated them with outcome, in a European cohort. Formalin-fixed tumor samples obtained from surgical specimens of patients treated with adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy for gastric cancer were analyzed. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed to analyze excision repair cross-complementing gene 1 (ERCC1) and thymidylate synthase (TS) expression, and p53 mutations were detected with direct sequencing. Among the 68 patient recruited, the median age was 69 (range 30-74), and UICC stage was III in 44 patients (65 %). With a median follow-up of 40.5 months, disease-free and overall survival were 18.0 (95 % CI 13.4-22.76) and 56 months (95 % CI 44.87-67.13), respectively. ERCC1 score was 0 in 14 out 67 (21 %) cases, 1 in 19 (28 %), 2 in 20 (30 %) and 3 in 14 cases (21 %). Longer overall survival (p = 0.04) was found in patients categorized as ERCC1 negative by IHC according to median score. TS score was 0 in 16 out 67 (24 %) cases, 1 in 27 (40 %), 2 in 16 (24 %) and 3 in 8 cases (12 %). Mutations of p53 were found in 21 out 66 (32 %) cases. Neither TS nor p53 were found to correlate with outcome. Excision repair cross-complementing gene 1 by IHC might predict patients more likely to benefit from adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in curatively resected gastric cancer. In patients exhibiting ERCC1 positive tumors, alternative regimens should be evaluated.

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

4.4
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