OBJECTIVES: Genetic variations or polymorphisms within genes of the nucleotide excision repair (NER) pathway alter DNA repair capacity. Reduced DNA repair (NER) capacity may result in tumors that are more susceptible to cisplatin chemotherapy, which functions by causing DNA damage. We investigated the potential predictive significance of functional NER single nucleotide polymorphisms in esophageal cancer patients treated with (n = 262) or without (n = 108) cisplatin. METHODS: Four NER polymorphisms XPD Asp312Asn; XPD Lys751Gln, ERCC1 8092C/A, and ERCC1 codon 118C/T were each assessed in polymorphism-cisplatin treatment interactions for overall survival (OS), with progression-free survival (PFS) as a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: No associations with ERCC1 118 were found. Polymorphism-cisplatin interactions were highly significant in both OS (P = 0.002, P = 0.0001, and P < 0.0001) and PFS (P = 0.006, P = 0.008, and P = 0.0007) for XPD 312, XPD 751, and ERCC1 8092, respectively. In cisplatin-treated patients, variant alleles of XPD 312, XPD 751, and ERCC1 8092 were each associated with significantly improved OS (and PFS): adjusted hazard ratios of homozygous variants versus wild-type ranged from 0.22 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1-0.5] to 0.31 (95% CI: 0.1-0.7). In contrast, in patients who did not receive cisplatin, variant alleles of XPD 751 and ERCC1 8092 had significantly worse survival, with adjusted hazard ratios of homozygous variants ranging from 2.47 (95% CI: 1.1-5.5) to 3.73 (95% CI: 1.6-8.7). Haplotype analyses affirmed these results. CONCLUSION: DNA repair polymorphisms are associated with OS and PFS, and if validated may predict for benefit from cisplatin therapy in patients with esophageal cancer.
OBJECTIVES: Genetic variations or polymorphisms within genes of the nucleotide excision repair (NER) pathway alter DNA repair capacity. Reduced DNA repair (NER) capacity may result in tumors that are more susceptible to cisplatin chemotherapy, which functions by causing DNA damage. We investigated the potential predictive significance of functional NER single nucleotide polymorphisms in esophageal cancerpatients treated with (n = 262) or without (n = 108) cisplatin. METHODS: Four NER polymorphisms XPD Asp312Asn; XPD Lys751Gln, ERCC1 8092C/A, and ERCC1codon 118C/T were each assessed in polymorphism-cisplatin treatment interactions for overall survival (OS), with progression-free survival (PFS) as a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: No associations with ERCC1 118 were found. Polymorphism-cisplatin interactions were highly significant in both OS (P = 0.002, P = 0.0001, and P < 0.0001) and PFS (P = 0.006, P = 0.008, and P = 0.0007) for XPD 312, XPD 751, and ERCC1 8092, respectively. In cisplatin-treated patients, variant alleles of XPD 312, XPD 751, and ERCC1 8092 were each associated with significantly improved OS (and PFS): adjusted hazard ratios of homozygous variants versus wild-type ranged from 0.22 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1-0.5] to 0.31 (95% CI: 0.1-0.7). In contrast, in patients who did not receive cisplatin, variant alleles of XPD 751 and ERCC1 8092 had significantly worse survival, with adjusted hazard ratios of homozygous variants ranging from 2.47 (95% CI: 1.1-5.5) to 3.73 (95% CI: 1.6-8.7). Haplotype analyses affirmed these results. CONCLUSION: DNA repair polymorphisms are associated with OS and PFS, and if validated may predict for benefit from cisplatin therapy in patients with esophageal cancer.
Authors: E J Duell; J K Wiencke; T J Cheng; A Varkonyi; Z F Zuo; T D Ashok; E J Mark; J C Wain; D C Christiani; K T Kelsey Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: Dmitri V Zaykin; Peter H Westfall; S Stanley Young; Maha A Karnoub; Michael J Wagner; Margaret G Ehm Journal: Hum Hered Date: 2002 Impact factor: 0.444
Authors: M R Spitz; X Wu; Y Wang; L E Wang; S Shete; C I Amos; Z Guo; L Lei; H Mohrenweiser; Q Wei Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-02-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: P Chen; J Wiencke; K Aldape; A Kesler-Diaz; R Miike; K Kelsey; M Lee; J Liu; M Wrensch Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Darren Tse; Rihong Zhai; Wei Zhou; Rebecca S Heist; Kofi Asomaning; Li Su; Thomas J Lynch; John C Wain; David C Christiani; Geoffrey Liu Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2008-05-14 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Ralf Metzger; Ute Warnecke-Eberz; Hakan Alakus; Fabian Kütting; Jan Brabender; Daniel Vallböhmer; Peter P Grimminger; Stefan P Mönig; Uta Drebber; Arnulf H Hölscher; Elfriede Bollschweiler Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Arantza Fariña Sarasqueta; Gesina van Lijnschoten; Valery E P P Lemmens; Harm J T Rutten; Adriaan J C van den Brule Journal: Mol Diagn Ther Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 4.074
Authors: Ulka N Vaishampayan; Joseph Fontana; Lance K Heilbrun; Daryn Smith; Elisabeth Heath; Brenda Dickow; William D Figg Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: M Gusella; S Giacopuzzi; L Bertolaso; A Zanoni; E Pezzolo; Y Modena; D Menon; P Paganin; J Weindelmayer; G Crepaldi; G De Manzoni; F Pasini Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 3.550