PURPOSE: To improve the clinical outcome of patients with gastric cancer, intensified combination strategies are currently in clinical development, including combinations of more extensive surgery, (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. The present study used DNA copy number profiling to identify subgroups of patients with different clinical outcomes. We hypothesize that, by identification of subgroups, individual treatment strategies can be selected to improve clinical outcome and to reduce unnecessary treatment toxicity for patients with gastric cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: DNA from 206 gastric cancer patients was isolated and analyzed by genomewide array comparative genomic hybridization. DNA copy number profiles were correlated with lymph node status and patient survival. In addition, heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) expression was analyzed and correlated with survival in 230 gastric cancer patients. RESULTS: Frequent (>20%) DNA copy number gains and losses were observed on several chromosomal regions. Losses on 5q11.2-q31.3 and 14q32.11-q32.33 (14% of patients) were correlated with good clinical outcome in univariate and multivariate analyses, with a median disease-free survival interval of 9.2 years. In addition, loss of expression of HSP90, located on chromosome 14q32.2, was correlated with better patient survival. CONCLUSION: Genomewide DNA copy number profiling allowed the identification of a subgroup of gastric cancer patients, marked by losses on chromosomes 5q11.2-q31.3 and 14q32.11-q32.33 or low HSP90 protein expression, with an excellent clinical outcome after surgery alone. We hypothesize that this subgroup of patients most likely will not benefit from (neo)adjuvant systemic treatment and/or radiotherapy, whereas anti-HSP90 therapy may have clinical potential in patients with HSP90-expressing gastric cancer, pending validation in an independent dataset.
PURPOSE: To improve the clinical outcome of patients with gastric cancer, intensified combination strategies are currently in clinical development, including combinations of more extensive surgery, (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. The present study used DNA copy number profiling to identify subgroups of patients with different clinical outcomes. We hypothesize that, by identification of subgroups, individual treatment strategies can be selected to improve clinical outcome and to reduce unnecessary treatment toxicity for patients with gastric cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: DNA from 206 gastric cancerpatients was isolated and analyzed by genomewide array comparative genomic hybridization. DNA copy number profiles were correlated with lymph node status and patient survival. In addition, heat shock protein 90 (HSP90) expression was analyzed and correlated with survival in 230 gastric cancerpatients. RESULTS: Frequent (>20%) DNA copy number gains and losses were observed on several chromosomal regions. Losses on 5q11.2-q31.3 and 14q32.11-q32.33 (14% of patients) were correlated with good clinical outcome in univariate and multivariate analyses, with a median disease-free survival interval of 9.2 years. In addition, loss of expression of HSP90, located on chromosome 14q32.2, was correlated with better patient survival. CONCLUSION: Genomewide DNA copy number profiling allowed the identification of a subgroup of gastric cancerpatients, marked by losses on chromosomes 5q11.2-q31.3 and 14q32.11-q32.33 or low HSP90 protein expression, with an excellent clinical outcome after surgery alone. We hypothesize that this subgroup of patients most likely will not benefit from (neo)adjuvant systemic treatment and/or radiotherapy, whereas anti-HSP90 therapy may have clinical potential in patients with HSP90-expressing gastric cancer, pending validation in an independent dataset.
Authors: J J Bonenkamp; J Hermans; M Sasako; C J van de Velde; K Welvaart; I Songun; S Meyer; J T Plukker; P Van Elk; H Obertop; D J Gouma; J J van Lanschot; C W Taat; P W de Graaf; M F von Meyenfeldt; H Tilanus Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-03-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elah Pick; Yuval Kluger; Jennifer M Giltnane; Christopher Moeder; Robert L Camp; David L Rimm; Harriet M Kluger Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2007-04-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: A Cuschieri; S Weeden; J Fielding; J Bancewicz; J Craven; V Joypaul; M Sydes; P Fayers Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Marjan M Weiss; Ernst J Kuipers; Cindy Postma; Antoine M Snijders; Daniel Pinkel; Stefan G M Meuwissen; Donna Albertson; Gerrit A Meijer Journal: Cell Oncol Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.730
Authors: Mariëlle I Gallegos Ruiz; Karijn Floor; Paul Roepman; José A Rodriguez; Gerrit A Meijer; Wolter J Mooi; Ewa Jassem; Jacek Niklinski; Thomas Muley; Nico van Zandwijk; Egbert F Smit; Kristin Beebe; Len Neckers; Bauke Ylstra; Giuseppe Giaccone Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mariette Labots; Tineke E Buffart; Josien C Haan; Nicole C T van Grieken; Marianne Tijssen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Heike I Grabsch; Bauke Ylstra; Beatriz Carvalho; Remond J A Fijneman; Henk M W Verheul; Gerrit A Meijer Journal: Cell Oncol (Dordr) Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 6.730
Authors: Hassan Brim; Mones S Abu-Asab; Mehdi Nouraie; Jose Salazar; Jim Deleo; Hadi Razjouyan; Pooneh Mokarram; Alejandro A Schaffer; Fakhraddin Naghibhossaini; Hassan Ashktorab Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-27 Impact factor: 3.240