Literature DB >> 23735059

Association of MDM2 T309G and p53 Arg72Pro polymorphisms and gastroesophageal reflux disease with survival in esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Daniel J Renouf1, Rihong Zhai, Bin Sun, Wei Xu, Winson Y Cheung, Rebecca S Heist, Matthew H Kulke, David Cescon, Kofi Asomaning, Ariella L Marshall, Su Li, David C Christiani, Geoffrey Liu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), some patients develop EAC in the absence of GERD. A putative mechanism of reflux-induced tumorigenesis involves disruptions in the p53 pathway. We assessed the interaction of GERD and p53 pathway polymorphisms on EAC prognosis.
METHODS: In a prospective cohort of 358 EAC patients, clinical data (including GERD history and survival) were collected. Germline DNA was genotyped for MDM2 T309G and p53 Arg72Pro. Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine adjusted hazard ratios (AHR) for associations between genotype, GERD, and genotype-GERD interactions with survival.
RESULTS: Compared with other genotypes, MDM2 G/G (median overall survival 21 vs 30 months; P < 0.001) and p53 Pro/Pro (12 vs 30 months; P = 0.004) were associated with shorter survival. When analyzed by GERD, MDM2 G/G was associated with shorter survival in patients without GERD (AHR 3.4, 95% CI 2.0-6.0), but not in patients with GERD (AHR 1.1 [0.7-1.8]); the MDM2-GERD interaction was significant (P = 0.003). A similar trend was seen for p53 Pro/Pro (AHRs 2.5 without GERD vs 1.4 with GERD). Combined analysis of at-risk variants (MDM2 G or p53 Pro), revealed each additional at-risk variant was associated with shorter survival in patients without GERD (AHR 1.6) but not with GERD (AHR 1.0).
CONCLUSIONS: MDM2 G/G and the combination of MDM2 G and p53 Pro were negative prognostic factors for EAC patients without GERD but not for those with GERD. There may be biological differences between GERD positive and GERD negative EAC.
© 2013 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  GERD; MDM2; esophageal cancer; p53; polymorphisms

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23735059     DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12286

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 0815-9319            Impact factor:   4.029


  4 in total

1.  Multi-colour FISH in oesophageal adenocarcinoma-predictors of prognosis independent of stage and grade.

Authors:  C-I Geppert; P Rümmele; M Sarbia; R Langer; M Feith; L Morrison; E Pestova; R Schneider-Stock; A Hartmann; T T Rau
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2014-05-22       Impact factor: 7.640

2.  Validation of microRNA pathway polymorphisms in esophageal adenocarcinoma survival.

Authors:  Olusola O Faluyi; Lawson Eng; Xin Qiu; Jiahua Che; Qihuang Zhang; Dangxiao Cheng; Nanjiao Ying; Alvina Tse; Qin Kuang; Lorin Dodbiba; Daniel J Renouf; Sharon Marsh; Sevtap Savas; Helen J Mackay; Jennifer J Knox; Gail E Darling; Rebecca K S Wong; Wei Xu; Abul Kalam Azad; Geoffrey Liu
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 4.452

Review 3.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of somatic and germline DNA sequence biomarkers of esophageal cancer survival, therapy response and stage.

Authors:  J M Findlay; M R Middleton; I Tomlinson
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2014-09-11       Impact factor: 32.976

4.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic biomarkers in resectable esophageal adenocarcinomas.

Authors:  Aafke Creemers; Eva A Ebbing; Thomas C Pelgrim; Sjoerd M Lagarde; Faridi S van Etten-Jamaludin; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Maarten C C M Hulshof; Kausilia K Krishnadath; Sybren L Meijer; Maarten F Bijlsma; Martijn G H van Oijen; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 4.379

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.