PURPOSE: Both negative and positive influences of mutant p53 on treatment outcome have been reported, and we present here a meta-analysis of published studies where outcome was reported for defined treatment groups. METHODS: We identified articles on the effect of p53 status by treatment modality, excluding those not stratified by method of treatment. A common hazard ratio was estimated from studies that reported a multivariate analysis. We also estimated the numbers of patients expressing the endpoint at the mean or median follow-up time and calculated a pooled odds ratio. RESULTS: Twenty-eight articles were evaluable (23 using immunohistochemistry to detect overexpression of p53 and 8 using DNA sequencing), for a total of 4,416 patients. For patients treated with surgery only, the immunohistochemistry studies showed a significant influence of p53 status on disease-free survival and a marginally significant influence on overall survival. In the studies using DNA sequencing, by contrast, there was a significant influence of p53 mutations on overall survival, but not disease-free survival. For patients treated with surgery and radiotherapy, the influence of p53 status on disease-free survival was either insignificant or marginally significant, depending on test used; there was no influence on overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Although this pooled analysis of published studies where treatment was accounted for shows that there is a borderline significant hazard associated with p53 overexpression or mutation vs. p53 wild-type, it is unlikely that p53 can be applied in a routine clinical setting alongside factors such as T stage, nodal status, and residual tumor, whose prognostic value is much stronger.
PURPOSE: Both negative and positive influences of mutant p53 on treatment outcome have been reported, and we present here a meta-analysis of published studies where outcome was reported for defined treatment groups. METHODS: We identified articles on the effect of p53 status by treatment modality, excluding those not stratified by method of treatment. A common hazard ratio was estimated from studies that reported a multivariate analysis. We also estimated the numbers of patients expressing the endpoint at the mean or median follow-up time and calculated a pooled odds ratio. RESULTS: Twenty-eight articles were evaluable (23 using immunohistochemistry to detect overexpression of p53 and 8 using DNA sequencing), for a total of 4,416 patients. For patients treated with surgery only, the immunohistochemistry studies showed a significant influence of p53 status on disease-free survival and a marginally significant influence on overall survival. In the studies using DNA sequencing, by contrast, there was a significant influence of p53 mutations on overall survival, but not disease-free survival. For patients treated with surgery and radiotherapy, the influence of p53 status on disease-free survival was either insignificant or marginally significant, depending on test used; there was no influence on overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Although this pooled analysis of published studies where treatment was accounted for shows that there is a borderline significant hazard associated with p53 overexpression or mutation vs. p53 wild-type, it is unlikely that p53 can be applied in a routine clinical setting alongside factors such as T stage, nodal status, and residual tumor, whose prognostic value is much stronger.
Authors: In Ja Park; Hee Cheol Kim; Chang Sik Yu; Heung Moon Chang; Jea Hwan Lee; Jong Hoon Kim; Tae Won Kim; Jung Sun Kim; Jin Cheon Kim Journal: Cancer Res Treat Date: 2004-12-31 Impact factor: 4.679
Authors: J M Fernández-Cebrián; M Nevado Santos; P Vorwald Kuborn; M Pardo de Lama; J Martín-Cavanna; P Pacheco Martínez; B Fernández Escudero; M Ramos Fernández Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Sabine Tejpar; Monica Bertagnolli; Fred Bosman; Heinz-Joseph Lenz; Levi Garraway; Frederic Waldman; Robert Warren; Andrea Bild; Denise Collins-Brennan; Hejin Hahn; D Paul Harkin; Richard Kennedy; Mohammad Ilyas; Hans Morreau; Vitali Proutski; Charles Swanton; Ian Tomlinson; Mauro Delorenzi; Roberto Fiocca; Eric Van Cutsem; Arnaud Roth Journal: Oncologist Date: 2010-03-29
Authors: Syed H Zaidi; Tabitha A Harrison; Amanda I Phipps; Robert Steinfelder; Quang M Trinh; Conghui Qu; Barbara L Banbury; Peter Georgeson; Catherine S Grasso; Marios Giannakis; Jeremy B Adams; Elizabeth Alwers; Efrat L Amitay; Richard T Barfield; Sonja I Berndt; Ivan Borozan; Hermann Brenner; Stefanie Brezina; Daniel D Buchanan; Yin Cao; Andrew T Chan; Jenny Chang-Claude; Charles M Connolly; David A Drew; Alton Brad Farris; Jane C Figueiredo; Amy J French; Charles S Fuchs; Levi A Garraway; Steve Gruber; Mark A Guinter; Stanley R Hamilton; Sophia Harlid; Lawrence E Heisler; Akihisa Hidaka; John L Hopper; Wen-Yi Huang; Jeroen R Huyghe; Mark A Jenkins; Paul M Krzyzanowski; Mathieu Lemire; Yi Lin; Xuemei Luo; Elaine R Mardis; John D McPherson; Jessica K Miller; Victor Moreno; Xinmeng Jasmine Mu; Reiko Nishihara; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Danielle Pasternack; Michael J Quist; Adilya Rafikova; Emma E G Reid; Eve Shinbrot; Brian H Shirts; Lincoln D Stein; Cherie D Teney; Lee Timms; Caroline Y Um; Bethany Van Guelpen; Megan Van Tassel; Xiaolong Wang; David A Wheeler; Christina K Yung; Li Hsu; Shuji Ogino; Andrea Gsur; Polly A Newcomb; Steven Gallinger; Michael Hoffmeister; Peter T Campbell; Stephen N Thibodeau; Wei Sun; Thomas J Hudson; Ulrike Peters Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: M Verónica Lopez; Diego L Viale; Eduardo G A Cafferata; Alicia I Bravo; Cecilia Carbone; David Gould; Yuti Chernajovsky; Osvaldo L Podhajcer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-04-08 Impact factor: 3.240