BACKGROUND & AIMS: 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based adjuvant chemotherapy does not increase survival times of patients with colorectal tumors with microsatellite instability. We determined the response of patients with colorectal tumors with the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) to 5-FU-based therapy. METHODS: We analyzed a population-based cohort of 302 patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) for a median follow-up time of 50.7 months. CIMP status was determined by analysis of the CACNAG1, SOCS1, RUNX3, NEUROG1, and MLH1 promoters; tumors were considered to be CIMP positive if at least 3 promoters were methylated. RESULTS: Tumors from 29.5% of patients (89/302) were CIMP positive; CIMP status did not influence disease-free survival (DFS; log-rank = 0.3). Of tumors of TNM stages II-III (n = 196), 32.7% were CIMP positive. Among patients with stages II-III CRC who did not receive adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy, those with CIMP-positive tumors had longest times of DFS (log-rank = 0.04); In patients who received chemotherapy, those with CIMP-positive tumors had shorter times of DFS (log-rank = 0.02). In patients with CIMP-negative tumors, adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy significantly increased time of DFS (log-rank = 0.00001). However, in patients with CIMP-positive tumors, adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy did not affect time of DFS (log-rank = 0.7). Multivariate analysis showed a significant, independent interaction between 5-FU treatment and CIMP status (hazard ratio [HR], 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-0.8). Among patients with CIMP-positive tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy was not an independent predictor of outcome (HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.0). In patients who did not receive adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy, CIMP status was the only independent predictor of survival (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CIMP-positive colorectal tumors do not benefit from 5-FU-based adjuvant chemotherapy.
BACKGROUND & AIMS:5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based adjuvant chemotherapy does not increase survival times of patients with colorectal tumors with microsatellite instability. We determined the response of patients with colorectal tumors with the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) to 5-FU-based therapy. METHODS: We analyzed a population-based cohort of 302 patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) for a median follow-up time of 50.7 months. CIMP status was determined by analysis of the CACNAG1, SOCS1, RUNX3, NEUROG1, and MLH1 promoters; tumors were considered to be CIMP positive if at least 3 promoters were methylated. RESULTS:Tumors from 29.5% of patients (89/302) were CIMP positive; CIMP status did not influence disease-free survival (DFS; log-rank = 0.3). Of tumors of TNM stages II-III (n = 196), 32.7% were CIMP positive. Among patients with stages II-III CRC who did not receive adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy, those with CIMP-positive tumors had longest times of DFS (log-rank = 0.04); In patients who received chemotherapy, those with CIMP-positive tumors had shorter times of DFS (log-rank = 0.02). In patients with CIMP-negative tumors, adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy significantly increased time of DFS (log-rank = 0.00001). However, in patients with CIMP-positive tumors, adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy did not affect time of DFS (log-rank = 0.7). Multivariate analysis showed a significant, independent interaction between 5-FU treatment and CIMP status (hazard ratio [HR], 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-0.8). Among patients with CIMP-positive tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy was not an independent predictor of outcome (HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.0). In patients who did not receive adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy, CIMP status was the only independent predictor of survival (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.8). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with CIMP-positive colorectal tumors do not benefit from 5-FU-based adjuvant chemotherapy.
Authors: Shuji Ogino; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Takako Kawasaki; Jeffrey W Clark; David P Ryan; Matthew H Kulke; Peter C Enzinger; Brian M Wolpin; Massimo Loda; Charles S Fuchs Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2007-03-20 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Ajay Goel; Takeshi Nagasaka; Christian N Arnold; Toru Inoue; Cody Hamilton; Donna Niedzwiecki; Carolyn Compton; Robert J Mayer; Richard Goldberg; Monica M Bertagnolli; C Richard Boland Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Christine M Ribic; Daniel J Sargent; Malcolm J Moore; Stephen N Thibodeau; Amy J French; Richard M Goldberg; Stanley R Hamilton; Pierre Laurent-Puig; Robert Gryfe; Lois E Shepherd; Dongsheng Tu; Mark Redston; Steven Gallinger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-07-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marius Van Rijnsoever; Hany Elsaleh; David Joseph; Kieran McCaul; Barry Iacopetta Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-08-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Rosa M Xicola; Xavier Llor; Elisenda Pons; Antoni Castells; Cristina Alenda; Virgínia Piñol; Montserrat Andreu; Sergi Castellví-Bel; Artemio Payá; Rodrigo Jover; Xavier Bessa; Anna Girós; José M Duque; David Nicolás-Pérez; Ana M Garcia; Joaquin Rigau; Miquel A Gassull Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2007-02-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lanlan Shen; Paul J Catalano; Al B Benson; Peter O'Dwyer; Stanley R Hamilton; Jean-Pierre J Issa Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-10-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Stacey Shiovitz; Monica M Bertagnolli; Lindsay A Renfro; Eunmi Nam; Nathan R Foster; Slavomir Dzieciatkowski; Yanxin Luo; Victoria Valinluck Lao; Raymond J Monnat; Mary J Emond; Nancy Maizels; Donna Niedzwiecki; Richard M Goldberg; Leonard B Saltz; Alan Venook; Robert S Warren; William M Grady Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2014-05-21 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Oscar Murcia; Miriam Juárez; Eva Hernández-Illán; Cecilia Egoavil; Mar Giner-Calabuig; María Rodríguez-Soler; Rodrigo Jover Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-04-07 Impact factor: 5.742