PURPOSE: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is a highly aggressive disease with poor long-term survival. Despite growing knowledge of its biology, no molecular biomarkers are currently used in routine clinical practice to determine prognosis or aid clinical decision making. Hence, this study set out to identify and validate a small, clinically applicable immunohistochemistry (IHC) panel for prognostication in patients with EAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We recently identified eight molecular prognostic biomarkers using two different genomic platforms. IHC scores of these biomarkers from a UK multicenter cohort (N = 374) were used in univariate Cox regression analysis to determine the smallest biomarker panel with the greatest prognostic power with potential therapeutic relevance. This new panel was validated in two independent cohorts of patients with EAC who had undergone curative esophagectomy from the United States and Europe (N = 666). RESULTS: Three of the eight previously identified prognostic molecular biomarkers (epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR], tripartite motif-containing 44 [TRIM44], and sirtuin 2 [SIRT2]) had the strongest correlation with long-term survival in patients with EAC. Applying these three biomarkers as an IHC panel to the validation cohort segregated patients into two different prognostic groups (P < .01). Adjusting for known survival covariates, including clinical staging criteria, the IHC panel remained an independent predictor, with incremental adverse overall survival (OS) for each positive biomarker (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.40 per biomarker; P = .02). CONCLUSION: We identified and validated a clinically applicable IHC biomarker panel, consisting of EGFR, TRIM44, and SIRT2, that is independently associated with OS and provides additional prognostic information to current survival predictors such as stage.
PURPOSE:Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is a highly aggressive disease with poor long-term survival. Despite growing knowledge of its biology, no molecular biomarkers are currently used in routine clinical practice to determine prognosis or aid clinical decision making. Hence, this study set out to identify and validate a small, clinically applicable immunohistochemistry (IHC) panel for prognostication in patients with EAC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We recently identified eight molecular prognostic biomarkers using two different genomic platforms. IHC scores of these biomarkers from a UK multicenter cohort (N = 374) were used in univariate Cox regression analysis to determine the smallest biomarker panel with the greatest prognostic power with potential therapeutic relevance. This new panel was validated in two independent cohorts of patients with EAC who had undergone curative esophagectomy from the United States and Europe (N = 666). RESULTS: Three of the eight previously identified prognostic molecular biomarkers (epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR], tripartite motif-containing 44 [TRIM44], and sirtuin 2 [SIRT2]) had the strongest correlation with long-term survival in patients with EAC. Applying these three biomarkers as an IHC panel to the validation cohort segregated patients into two different prognostic groups (P < .01). Adjusting for known survival covariates, including clinical staging criteria, the IHC panel remained an independent predictor, with incremental adverse overall survival (OS) for each positive biomarker (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.40 per biomarker; P = .02). CONCLUSION: We identified and validated a clinically applicable IHC biomarker panel, consisting of EGFR, TRIM44, and SIRT2, that is independently associated with OS and provides additional prognostic information to current survival predictors such as stage.
Authors: Sjoerd M Lagarde; J B Reitsma; F J W Ten Kate; O R C Busch; H Obertop; A H Zwinderman; J Moons; J J B van Lanschot; T Lerut Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Edith A Perez; Monica M Reinholz; David W Hillman; Kathleen S Tenner; Matthew J Schroeder; Nancy E Davidson; Silvana Martino; George W Sledge; Lyndsay N Harris; Julie R Gralow; Amylou C Dueck; Rhett P Ketterling; James N Ingle; Wilma L Lingle; Peter A Kaufman; Daniel W Visscher; Robert B Jenkins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-08-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Haris Zahoor; James D Luketich; Benny Weksler; Daniel G Winger; Neil A Christie; Ryan M Levy; Michael K Gibson; Jon M Davison; Katie S Nason Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2015-06-26 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Aatur D Singhi; Tyler J Foxwell; Katie Nason; Kristi L Cressman; Kevin M McGrath; Weijing Sun; Nathan Bahary; Herbert J Zeh; Ryan M Levy; James D Luketich; Jon M Davison Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: William H Allum; Luigi Bonavina; Stephen D Cassivi; Miguel A Cuesta; Zhao Ming Dong; Valter Nilton Felix; Edgar Figueredo; Piers A C Gatenby; Leonie Haverkamp; Maksat A Ibraev; Mark J Krasna; René Lambert; Rupert Langer; Michael P N Lewis; Katie S Nason; Kevin Parry; Shaun R Preston; Jelle P Ruurda; Lara W Schaheen; Roger P Tatum; Igor N Turkin; Sylvia van der Horst; Donald L van der Peet; Peter C van der Sluis; Richard van Hillegersberg; Justin C R Wormald; Peter C Wu; Barbara M Zonderhuis Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Jon M Davison; Shane T Ellis; Tyler J Foxwell; James D Luketich; Michael K Gibson; Shih-Fan Kuan; Katie S Nason Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 3.466