| Literature DB >> 22804917 |
Leonie J M Mekenkamp1, Jolien Tol, Jeroen R Dijkstra, Inge de Krijger, M Elisa Vink-Börger, Shannon van Vliet, Steven Teerenstra, Eveline Kamping, Eugène Verwiel, Miriam Koopman, Gerrit A Meijer, J Han Jm van Krieken, Roland Kuiper, Cornelis J A Punt, Iris D Nagtegaal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: KRAS mutation is a negative predictive factor for treatment with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Novel predictive markers are required to further improve the selection of patients for this treatment. We assessed the influence of modification of KRAS by gene copy number aberration (CNA) and microRNAs (miRNAs) in correlation to clinical outcome in mCRC patients treated with cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy and bevacizumab.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22804917 PMCID: PMC3508829 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-12-292
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Clinical and histopathological characteristics of patients and their respective tumours
| Mean | 58.6 | 58.0 | 59.2 | 0.07 | |
| Female | 14 (41%) | 5 (29%) | 9 (53%) | 0.30 | |
| Male | 20 (59%) | 12 (71%) | 8 (47%) | ||
| 1 | 17 (50%) | 9 (53%) | 8 (47%) | 0.60 | |
| >1 | 17 (50%) | 8 (47%) | 9 (53%) | ||
| 0 | 23 (68%) | 11 (65%) | 12 (71%) | 0.71 | |
| 1 | 11 (32%) | 6 (35%) | 5 (29%) | ||
| Colon | 22 (65%) | 11 (65%) | 11 (65%) | 0.90 | |
| Rectosigmoid | 12 (35%) | 6 (35%) | 6 (35%) | ||
| 1-2 | 4 (12%) | 2 (12%) | 2 (12%) | 0.49 | |
| 3 | 21 (62%) | 12 (71%) | 9 (53%) | ||
| 4 | 9 (26%) | 3 (18%) | 6 (35%) | ||
| 0 | 9 (26%) | 4 (24%) | 5 (29%) | 0.61 | |
| 1 | 8 (24%) | 4 (24%) | 4 (24%) | ||
| 2 | 14 (41%) | 9 (53%) | 5 (29%) | ||
| Unknown | 3 (9%) | 0 | 3 (18%) | ||
| Good | 1 (3%) | 1 (6%) | 0 | 0.02 | |
| Moderate | 23 (68%) | 15 (88%) | 8 (47%) | ||
| Poor | 10 (29%) | 1 (6%) | 9 (53%) | ||
| Wild-type | 30 (88%) | 16 (94%) | 14 (82%) | 0.29 | |
| Mutant | 4 (12%) | 1 (6%) | 3 (18%) | ||
| Wild-type | 19 (56%) | 11 (65%) | 8 (47%) | 0.30 | |
| Mutant | 15 (44%) | 6 (35%) | 9 (53%) | ||
| Codon 12 | 14 (93%) | 6 (100%) | 8 (89%) | 0.40 | |
| Codon 13 | 1 (7%) | 0 | 1 (11%) | ||
| Median (range) | 11.0 (2.3-39.8) | 22.5 (14.8-39.8) | 6.0 (2.3-7.2) | s<0.0001 | |
Abbreviations: PS = performance status, PFS = progression-free survival.
Figure 112p12.1 copy number changes in good and poor responders according to themutation status. Abbreviations: CNA = copy number aberration. MT = mutant, WT = wild-type.
MiRNA expression in good versus poor responders
| −0.98 | 0.77 | 1.98 | −0.92 | 0.64 | 1.90 | 1.04 | 0.80 | |
| −1.04 | 2.80 | 2.05 | 0.57 | 3.15 | 0.68 | 3.01 | 0.21 | |
| −0.66 | 1.25 | 1.58 | −0.19 | 0.89 | 1.14 | 1.39 | 0.24 | |
| 0.32 | 1.52 | 0.80 | 0.57 | 1.14 | 0.67 | 1.19 | 0.60 | |
| −1.64 | 0.85 | 3.11 | −1.27 | 0.75 | 2.42 | 1.29 | 0.21 | |
| −3.39 | 1.84 | 10.45 | −2.82 | 1.55 | 7.04 | 1.48 | 0.35 | |
| −0.57 | 0.92 | 1.49 | 0.05 | 1.42 | 0.97 | 1.54 | 0.15 | |
| −2.10 | 0.98 | 4.27 | −2.00 | 0.82 | 4.00 | 1.07 | 0.77 | |
| −0.81 | 0.86 | 1.75 | −0.66 | 0.88 | 1.58 | 1.11 | 0.65 | |
| −0.67 | 0.79 | 1.59 | −0.39 | 0.70 | 1.31 | 1.21 | 0.30 | |
| −3.16 | 1.16 | 8.92 | −2.75 | 0.79 | 6.75 | 1.32 | 0.26 | |
| −4.56 | 1.32 | 23.59 | −3.81 | 1.40 | 14.04 | 1.68 | 0.13 | |
| −0.73 | 1.35 | 1.66 | −1.76 | 1.55 | 3.38 | 0.49 | 0.07 | |
| −2.91 | 3.09 | 7.53 | −1.64 | 3.10 | 3.12 | 2.41 | 0.30 | |
| 0.91 | 1.69 | 0.53 | 0.33 | 1.79 | 0.79 | 0.67 | 0.36 | |
| 0.98 | 1.74 | 0.51 | 0.39 | 2.23 | 0.76 | 0.67 | 0.41 | |
| −2.95 | 1.71 | 7.73 | −2.45 | 1.37 | 5.45 | 1.42 | 0.37 | |
Abbreviations: SE = standard error, RQ = relative quotient.
Figure 2Box plots of the expression levels of miR-181a, miR-200b and miR-143 in mCRC patients according to clinical outcome andmutation status. Abbreviations: G = good responders, P = poor responders, MT = mutant, WT = wild-type.
A multivariate model in which each miRNA was analyzed individually together with differentiation grade as a predictor for PFS in wild-type-and mutated-patients treated with chemotherapy, bevacizumab and cetuximab
| HR (95% CI) | 0.74 (0.38-1.42) | 0.94 (0.36-2.42) | 0.51 (0.20-1.32) | 0.38 | |
| p-value | 0.36 | 0.89 | 0.16 | ||
| HR (95% CI) | 1.04 (0.84-1.29) | 0.95 (0.76-1.21) | 1.22 (0.83-1.78) | 0.26 | |
| p-value | 0.72 | 0.69 | 0.32 | ||
| HR (95% CI) | 0.92 (0.62-1.35) | 0.77 (0.38-1.53) | 0.96 (0.60-1.51) | 0.60 | |
| p-value | 0.66 | 0.45 | 0.85 | ||
| HR (95% CI) | 0.83 (0.63-1.10) | 0.85 (0.61-1.19) | 0.72 (0.40-1.32) | 0.63 | |
| p-value | 0.20 | 0.34 | 0.29 | ||
| HR (95% CI) | 0.75 (0.46-1.22) | 0.70 (0.37-1.33) | 0.94 (0.44-2.02) | 0.57 | |
| p-value | 0.24 | 0.27 | 0.87 | ||
| HR (95% CI) | 0.96 (0.78-1.19) | 1.03 (0.80-1.33) | 0.74 (0.45-1.20) | 0.23 | |
| p-value | 0.73 | 0.82 | 0.22 | ||
| HR (95% CI) | 1.03 (0.72-1.47) | 0.90 (0.51-1.57) | 1.78 (0.87-3.62) | 0.18 | |
| p-value | 0.86 | 0.70 | 0.10 | ||
| HR (95% CI) | 0.74 (0.43-1.27) | 0.69 (0.31-1.54) | 0.71 (0.35-1.43) | 0.96 | |
| p-value | 0.27 | 0.37 | 0.34 | ||
| HR (95% CI) | 0.70 (0.44-1.10) | 0.77 (0.40-1.55) | 0.70 (0.37-1.34) | 0.86 | |
| p-value | 0.12 | 0.46 | 0.28 | ||
| HR (95% CI) | 0.94 (0.59-1.50) | 0.89 (0.50-1.59) | 1.28 (0.46-3.58) | 0.55 | |
| p-value | 0.80 | 0.68 | 0.63 | ||
| HR (95% CI) | 0.89 (0.57-1.39) | 1.15 (0.52-2.55) | 0.81 (0.49-1.33) | 0.47 | |
| p-value | 0.61 | 0.74 | 0.40 | ||
| HR (95% CI) | 0.84 (0.59-1.20) | 0.74 (0.45-1.22) | 0.93 (0.55-1.58) | 0.54 | |
| p-value | 0.33 | 0.24 | 0.79 | ||
| HR (95% CI) | 0.73 (0.51-1.05) | 0.92 (0.56-1.51) | 0.63 (0.40-0.99) | 0.26 | |
| p-value | 0.09 | 0.74 | 0.04 | ||
| HR (95% CI) | 1.01 (0.87-1.16) | 0.85 (0.61-1.19) | 0.78 (0.56-1.08) | 0.72 | |
| p-value | 0.95 | 0.34 | 0.13 | ||
| HR (95% CI) | 0.81 (0.63-1.05) | 0.98 (0.68-1.43) | 0.66 (0.41-1.06) | 0.21 | |
| p-value | 0.12 | 0.92 | 0.09 | ||
| HR (95% CI) | 0.89 (0.70-1.13) | 1.04 (0.73-1.49) | 0.80 (0.55-1.17) | 0.32 | |
| p-value | 0.32 | 0.83 | 0.25 | ||
| HR (95% CI) | 0.95 (0.75-1.20) | 1.02 (0.77-1.34) | 0.66 (0.36-1.23) | 0.21 | |
| p-value | 0.65 | 0.91 | 0.19 |