Literature DB >> 24647522

Response to first-line chemotherapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer according to RRM1 expression.

Xiaopeng Dong1, Yingtao Hao1, Yucheng Wei2, Qiuwei Yin3, Jiajun Du4, Xiaogang Zhao1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The response to cytotoxic chemotherapy varies greatly in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and molecular markers may be useful in determining a preferable therapeutic approach for individual patients. This retrospective study was performed to evaluate the predictive value of ribonucleotide reductase regulatory subunit M1 (RRM1) on the therapeutic efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC.
METHODS: Patients with advanced NSCLC who received platinum doublet chemotherapy (n = 229) were included in this retrospective study, and their clinical outcomes were analyzed according to RRM1 expression.
RESULTS: In patients receiving gemcitabine-based therapy, the disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with RRM1-negative tumors were significantly higher than in patients with RRMI-positive tumors (P = 0.041 and P = 0.01, respectively), and multivariate analysis showed that RRM1 expression was an independent prognostic factor (P = 0.013). No similar differences were found in patients receiving docetaxel- or vinorelbine-based therapy. In RRM1-positive patients, the DCRs for docetaxel and vinorelbine were higher than for gemcitabine (P = 0.047 and P = 0.047, respectively), and docetaxel and vinorelbine showed a longer PFS than gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (P = 0.012 and P = 0.007). No similar differences were found among patients with RRM1-negative tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: Negative RRM1 expression in advanced NSCLC is associated with a higher response rate to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. In patients with RRM1-positive tumors, docetaxel and vinorelbine showed a higher therapeutic efficacy than gemcitabine-based therapy. Additional prospective studies are needed to investigate the predictive meaning of RRM1 in the response to chemotherapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24647522      PMCID: PMC3960222          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0092320

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


Introduction

Platinum-based chemotherapy is considered the main therapeutic approach for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [1], 2. However, the selection of chemotherapeutic agents is primarily based on the clinician’s experience and preference, and studies have shown a great deal of variability with respect to their therapeutic efficacy and toxicity. Even with newly developed chemotherapy regimens, the prognosis of patients with advanced NSCLC remains dismal [3]–[5]. At present, promising results on the utility of molecular markers in predicting efficacy of cytotoxic therapy in NSCLC have been reported. Excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) was shown to be associated with the response to platinum-based chemotherapy [6]–[8], and in another recent study, taxane-based therapies showed a higher disease control rate (DCR) and longer progression-free survival (PFS) than gemcitabine in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations [9]. These studies suggest that the tumor biology and the response to cytotoxic chemotherapy vary greatly among NSCLC patients, and individualized therapies may help reduce the resistance to chemotherapeutic agents. Ribonucleotide reductase regulatory subunit M1 (RRM1) is a molecule involved in DNA synthesis and damage repair. Preclinical studies have shown that RRM1 is involved in sensitivity to gemcitabine in NSCLC [10], [11]. Lower RRM1 expression was associated with a high response rate to platinum agents and gemcitabine, and patients with high expression of RRM1 showed a decreased response to gemcitabine therapy [12]–[15]. However, in other reports, RRM1 was either not associated or was inversely associated with the survival of NSCLC patients receiving gemcitabine-containing regimens [16], [17]. Therefore, the correlation between RRM1 expression and the response to chemotherapy is still uncertain. In the present study, we reviewed 229 patients with advanced NSCLC who had received platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as a first-line therapy, and evaluated their clinical outcomes according to RRM1 expression.

Patients and Methods

Ethics Statement

This retrospective study was approved by the ethics committee of second hospital of Shandong university. And all patient records were anonymized and de-identified prior to analysis.

Patients

In this retrospective analysis, 680 patients diagnosed with advanced NSCLC between 2007 and 2010 were screened, 325 of whom had received carboplatin-based doublet chemotherapy as a first-line treatment. A cohort of 229 patients, for whom clinical records and computed tomography (CT) scans were complete and tumor specimens were available to screen for RRM1 expression, was selected. Histological type was determined according to the World Health Organization criteria. During the treatment period, a chest CT scan was taken every 6–8 weeks, and independent reviews of these CT scans were performed in this retrospective study to confirm the response to therapy and to assess disease progression. The treatment response was classified as progressive disease (PD), stable disease (SD), partial response (PR), or complete response (CR), according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors). Patients showing a CR or PR were regarded as responders. The DCR included patients with CR, PR, and SD lasting longer than three months. PFS was the time between the first day of treatment and the first sign of disease progression or death.

RRM1 Expression Analysis

Immunohistochemistry was performed using 5 μm-thick sections from paraffin-embedded tissue blocks and a Bond Polymer Intense Detection System (VisionBioSystems, Vic, Australia), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. As a negative control, the same immunohistochemical staining protocol was used except the specific primary antibody (ProteinTech Group, Chicago, USA) was replaced with distilled water. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded human colonic adenocarcinoma tissue was used as a positive control. Five fields at 400× magnification were selected for each section to assess immunoreactivity. RRM1 immunoreactivity was evaluated semi-quantitatively based on the staining intensity and the proportion of positively staining cells by two independent observers blinded to patient status. The proportion of staining was scored from 0 to 3 as follows: diffuse, ≥50% positive (score 3); regional, 10–49% positive (score 2); focal, 1–9% positive (score 1); and negative, <1% positive (score 0). The intensity of staining was also scored from 0 to 3 (0, absent; 1, weak; 2, moderate; 3, intense). The immunoreactive score for each sample was determined by multiplying the two individual scores. A score of ≥9 was defined as a positive/high expression, and a score of <9 was considered a negative/low expression.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses of categorical variables, including response rate (RR) and DCR, were performed using Fisher’s exact test. Comparisons of the mean between different groups were calculated using the Student’s t-test. The median duration of PFS was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analyses were performed using Cox regression analysis for PFS to identify independent factors. Two-sided P-values of less than 0.05 were considered significant. All analyses were performed using SPSS 17.0 for Windows.

Results

Patient Characteristics and RRM1 Expression

A total of 229 NSCLC patients were included in the study. The ages ranged from 39 to 75 years (median age, 61 years), and 127 patients (55.5%) were male. The majority of the tumors were adenocarcinoma (112 patients, 48.9%) and 123 patients had stage IV disease (53.7%). All patients received carboplatin-based doublet chemotherapy as a first-line treatment. Gemcitabine, docetaxel, and vinorelbine regimens were administered in 81 (35.4%), 77 (33.6%) and 71 (31.0%) cases, respectively, and the choice of regimen was made by the responsible clinician (Table 1). Of the 229 tumors, 146 (63.8%) were negative for RRM1 expression, and 83 (36.2%) were positive for RRM1 (Table 1).
Table 1

Basic characteristics of NSCLC patients.

CharacteristicsNo%
No. of patients229
Age (median years)61Range, 39–75
Gender
Male12755.5
Female10244.5
History of smoking
Never smoker13056.8
Smoker9943.2
Histology
Adenocarcinoma11248.9
Squamous cell carcinoma6729.3
Others5021.8
Stage
IIIB10646.3
IV12353.7
RRM1
Negative14663.8
Positive8336.2
Chemotherapeutic regimen
Gemcitabine and carboplatin8135.4
Docetaxel and carboplatin7733.6
Vinorelbine and carboplatin7131.0
The relationship between patient characteristics and chemotherapy regimens according to RRM1 expression was analyzed. The patient characteristics were similar among patients receiving gemcitabine-, docetaxel-, and vinorelbine-based therapies (Table 2).
Table 2

Characteristics of patients receiving chemotherapeutic regimens according to RRM1 expression.

CharacteristicsRRM1-negative P-value RRM1-positive P-value
GemcitabineDocetaxelVinorelbineGemcitabineDocetaxelVinorelbine
No. of patients525044292727
Age (years)586261>0.05# 605863>0.05#
Gender
Male29 (55.8%)28 (56.0%)25 (56.8%)>0.05* 16 (55.2%)15 (55.6%)14 (51.2%)>0.05*
Female23 (44.2%)22 (44.0%)19 (43.2%)13 (44.8%)12 (44.4%)13 (48.8%)
Smoking history
Never smoker30 (57.7%)31 (62.0%)25 (56.8%)>0.05* 15 (51.7%)15 (55.6%)14 (51.9%)>0.05*
Smoker22 (42.3%)19 (38.0%)19 (43.2%)>0.05* 14 (48.3%)12 (44.4%)13 (48.1%)>0.05*
Histology
Adenocarcinoma24 (46.2%)25 (50.0%)22 (50.0%)>0.05* 14 (48.3%)14 (51.9%)13 (48.2%)>0.05*
Squamous cell carcinoma17 (32.7%)15 (30.0%)12 (27.3%)8 (27.6%)8 (29.6%)7 (25.9%)
others11 (21.1%)10 (20.0%)10 (22.7%)7 (24.1%)5 (18.5%)7 (25.9%)
Stage
IIIB24 (46.2%)22 (44.0%)20 (45.5%)>0.05* 14 (48.3%)12 (44.4%)14 (51.9%)>0.05*
IV28 (53.8%)28 (56.0%)24 (54.5%)15 (51.7%)15 (55.6%)13 (48.1%)

*Based on Fisher’s exact test.

Based on Student’s t-test.

*Based on Fisher’s exact test. Based on Student’s t-test.

Tumor Response and PFS According to RRM1 Expression

In the 229 patients, 3 CRs, 77 PRs, 101 SDs, and 48 PDs were observed, for an overall RR and DCR of 34.9% and 79.0%, respectively. There were no differences in the RR and DCR between patients with RRM1-negative tumors and those with RRM1-positive tumors. However, in patients receiving gemcitabine-based therapy, the DCR of RRM1-negative patients was significantly higher than that of RRM1-positive cases (78.8% vs. 55.2%, P = 0.041). No similar difference was found in patients receiving docetaxel- or vinorelbine-based therapy (Table 3).
Table 3

Response to chemotherapy according to RRM1 expression.

Gemcitabine and carboplatinDocetaxel and carboplatinVinorelbine and carboplatin
CRPRSDPDRRDCRCRPRSDPDRRDCRCRPRSDPDRRDCR
RRM1
Negative11822111941* 11726618441142181536
Positive07913716* # 0101251022# 0111151122#

*Based on Fisher’s exact test. In patients receiving gemcitabine-based therapy, the DCR of RRM1-negative patients was higher than RRM1-positive patients (P = 0.041).

Based on Fisher’s exact test. In patients with RRM1-positive tumors, the DCRs for docetaxel and vinorelbine were higher than for gemcitabine-based therapy (P = 0.047 and P = 0.047, respectively).

*Based on Fisher’s exact test. In patients receiving gemcitabine-based therapy, the DCR of RRM1-negative patients was higher than RRM1-positive patients (P = 0.041). Based on Fisher’s exact test. In patients with RRM1-positive tumors, the DCRs for docetaxel and vinorelbine were higher than for gemcitabine-based therapy (P = 0.047 and P = 0.047, respectively). The median PFS was 8.7 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 8.5–9.0 months) in all patients. No difference in PFS was found between patients with RRM1-negative tumors and those with RRM1-positive tumors (8.9 months vs. 8.5 months, P = 0.316) (Fig. 1A). However, in patients receiving gemcitabine-based therapy, the PFS of RRM1-negative patients was significantly higher than that of RRM1-positive patients (8.8 months vs. 7.6 months, P = 0.01) (Fig. 1B). No similar difference was observed in patients receiving docetaxel- or vinorelbine-based therapy (Figs. 1C and 1D).
Figure 1

Kaplan-Meier curve of progression-free survival (PFS) according to ribonucleotide reductase M1 (RRM1) expression.

(A) PFS for all patients with negative or positive RRM1 expression. (B) PFS for patients receiving gemcitabine-based therapy. (C) PFS for patients receiving docetaxel-based therapy. (D) PFS for patients receiving vinorelbine-based therapy.

Kaplan-Meier curve of progression-free survival (PFS) according to ribonucleotide reductase M1 (RRM1) expression.

(A) PFS for all patients with negative or positive RRM1 expression. (B) PFS for patients receiving gemcitabine-based therapy. (C) PFS for patients receiving docetaxel-based therapy. (D) PFS for patients receiving vinorelbine-based therapy. In multivariate analysis adjusted for gender, smoking history, and stage of disease, RRM1 expression emerged as an independent predictive factor for PFS in patients receiving gemcitabine-based therapy (95% CI: 1.135–2.907, P = 0.013).

Tumor Response and PFS According to Chemotherapy Regimen

In patients with RRM1-negative tumors, no differences were observed in terms of RR, DCR, or PFS among patients that received gemcitabine-, docetaxel-, or vinorelbine-based therapies. However, in patients with RRM1-positive tumors, the DCR of patients receiving docetaxel or vinorelbine was higher than that of patients receiving gemcitabine (81.5% and 81.5% vs. 55.2%, respectively; P = 0.047 and P = 0.047) (Table 3). In addition, docetaxel and vinorelbine showed a longer PFS than gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (8.9 months and 9.1 months vs. 7.6 months, respectively; P = 0.012 and P = 0.007) (Figs. 2A and 2B).
Figure 2

Kaplan-Meier curve of progression-free survival (PFS) according to chemotherapy regimen.

(A) PFS for patients with RRM1-negative tumors. (B) PFS for patients with RRM1-positive tumors.

Kaplan-Meier curve of progression-free survival (PFS) according to chemotherapy regimen.

(A) PFS for patients with RRM1-negative tumors. (B) PFS for patients with RRM1-positive tumors.

Discussion

In the present study, we analyzed 229 patients with NSCLC who had received carboplatin-based doublet chemotherapy. In patients receiving gemcitabine-based therapy, the DCR and PFS in patients with RRM1-negative tumors was significantly higher than in RRM1-positive cases, and multivariate analysis showed that RRM1 expression was an independent predictive factor for outcome. RRM1 overexpression in tumor tissue may induce resistance to gemcitabine-based therapy. Ribonucleotide reductase (RR) is an essential enzyme for DNA synthesis, and is inhibited by the active metabolite of gemcitabine, difluorideosycytidine 5-diphosphate. RRM1 depletes difluorideosycytidine 5-diphosphate and promotes DNA synthesis, thereby enabling tumor survival. In studies with lung cancer cell lines, RRM1 overexpression is associated with resistance to gemcitabine therapy [13], [18]. Consistently, clinical studies have also suggested that overexpression of RRM1 correlates with resistance to gemcitabine-based therapy [19], [20]. Conversely, low RRM1 mRNA expression was associated with a high response rate [21]. These studies demonstrate that RRM1 could be a predictive marker of the response to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in patients with NSCLC [22]. The present study also showed that the DCR was higher in RRM1-positive patients that received docetaxel or vinorelbine, rather than gemcitabine-based therapy. In addition, docetaxel and vinorelbine each showed a longer PFS than gemcitabine-based therapy. Simon et al. used RRM1 and ERCC1 as molecular determinants, and found that RRM1- and ERCC1-tailored selection of first-line therapy could improve response, overall survival (OS), and PFS over standard treatments in patients with NSCLC [23]. These studies suggest that responses to cytotoxic chemotherapy vary greatly in patients with NSCLC, and individualized therapy based on RRM1 expression may help improve the efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents [24]. Our research was performed retrospectively, and this is the major limitation of the study. However, the current results provide new information and further insight that can assist clinicians in selecting appropriate and individualized chemotherapy for patients with NSCLC based on RRM1 expression. Several molecular markers have been used as predictive markers of the response to chemotherapy in NSCLC patients. ERCC1 has been used for the prediction of platinum sensitivity in the treatment of NSCLC [6]–[8]. Park et al. analyzed 217 patients with NSCLC who had received gemcitabine- or taxane-based chemotherapy, and found that taxane was associated with a higher response than gemcitabine treatment in patients with EGFR mutations [9]. Another study found that low thymidylate synthase (TS) expression is significantly associated with better clinical outcomes in non-squamous NSCLC patients who were treated with pemetrexed-based chemotherapy [25]. Therefore, more prospectively designed studies with combined detection of these markers (RRM1, ERCC1, EGFR, and TS) will provide valuable information that will ultimately be used to determine preferable therapeutic approaches for individual patients with NSCLC. In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that negative RRM1 expression in advanced NSCLC is associated with a higher response rate to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. Moreover, RRM1 may be used as a predictive marker for conventional chemotherapy regimens involving gemcitabine, docetaxel, and vinorelbine. Additional prospective studies are needed to evaluate the effect of RRM1 expression on the response to various chemotherapeutic regimens in patients with NSCLC.
  23 in total

1.  RRM1 expression and clinical outcome of gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Weiyi Gong; Xinmin Zhang; Jinfeng Wu; Lili Chen; Lulu Li; Jing Sun; Yubao Lv; Xiaobai Wei; Yijie Du; Hualiang Jin; Jingcheng Dong
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 5.705

2.  ERCC1 and BRAC1 mRNA expression levels in the primary tumor could predict the effectiveness of the second-line cisplatin-based chemotherapy in pretreated patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Chara Papadaki; Maria Sfakianaki; Georgios Ioannidis; Eleni Lagoudaki; Maria Trypaki; Kostas Tryfonidis; Dimitris Mavroudis; Efstathios Stathopoulos; Vassilis Georgoulias; John Souglakos
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 15.609

Review 3.  Prognostic role of ERCC1 in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Joshua A Roth; Josh J Carlson
Journal:  Clin Lung Cancer       Date:  2011-07-01       Impact factor: 4.785

4.  Significance of thymidylate synthase and thyroid transcription factor 1 expression in patients with nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer treated with pemetrexed-based chemotherapy.

Authors:  Jong-Mu Sun; Joungho Han; Jin Seok Ahn; Keunchil Park; Myung-Ju Ahn
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 15.609

5.  EGFR mutations as a predictive marker of cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Authors:  Jin Hyun Park; Se-Hoon Lee; Bhumsuk Keam; Tae Min Kim; Dong-Wan Kim; Seok-Chul Yang; Young Whan Kim; Dae Seog Heo
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2012-04-21       Impact factor: 5.705

6.  Preliminary indication of survival benefit from ERCC1 and RRM1-tailored chemotherapy in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: evidence from an individual patient analysis.

Authors:  George R Simon; Michael J Schell; Mubeena Begum; Jongphil Kim; Alberto Chiappori; Eric Haura; Scott Antonia; Gerold Bepler
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-10-25       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy with in situ RRM1 and ERCC1 protein levels for response prediction in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Craig Reynolds; Coleman Obasaju; Michael J Schell; Xueli Li; Zhong Zheng; David Boulware; John R Caton; Linda C Demarco; Mark A O'Rourke; Gail Shaw Wright; Kristi A Boehm; Lina Asmar; Jane Bromund; Guangbin Peng; Matthew J Monberg; Gerold Bepler
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-11-02       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Randomized international phase III trial of ERCC1 and RRM1 expression-based chemotherapy versus gemcitabine/carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Gerold Bepler; Charles Williams; Michael J Schell; Wei Chen; Zhong Zheng; George Simon; Shirish Gadgeel; Xiuhua Zhao; Fred Schreiber; Julie Brahmer; Alberto Chiappori; Tawee Tanvetyanon; Mary Pinder-Schenck; Jhanelle Gray; Eric Haura; Scott Antonia; Juergen R Fischer
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-05-20       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 9.  Setting the stage for tailored chemotherapy in the management of non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  George R Simon; Mubeena Begum; Gerold Bepler
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 3.404

10.  Ribonucleotide reductase subunits M1 and M2 mRNA expression levels and clinical outcome of lung adenocarcinoma patients treated with docetaxel/gemcitabine.

Authors:  J Souglakos; I Boukovinas; M Taron; P Mendez; D Mavroudis; M Tripaki; D Hatzidaki; A Koutsopoulos; E Stathopoulos; V Georgoulias; R Rosell
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2008-04-15       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  7 in total

1.  Gemcitabine sensitivity factors, hENT1 and RRM1 as potential prognostic biomarker for advanced biliary tract cancer.

Authors:  Ting Deng; Hong Pan; Rubing Han; Dingzhi Huang; Hongli Li; Likun Zhou; Xia Wang; Ming Bai; Xiang Li; Rui Liu; Shaohua Ge; Tao Ning; Le Zhang; Yi Ba
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2014-12-15

2.  Tumor profiling of gastric and esophageal carcinoma reveal different treatment options.

Authors:  John T Miura; Joanne Xiu; James Thomas; Ben George; Benjamin R Carron; Susan Tsai; Fabian M Johnston; Kiran K Turaga; T Clark Gamblin
Journal:  Cancer Biol Ther       Date:  2015-03-16       Impact factor: 4.742

Review 3.  Inhibitors of the Cancer Target Ribonucleotide Reductase, Past and Present.

Authors:  Sarah E Huff; Jordan M Winter; Chris G Dealwis
Journal:  Biomolecules       Date:  2022-06-10

Review 4.  Molecular Characterization of Gastric Carcinoma: Therapeutic Implications for Biomarkers and Targets.

Authors:  Lionel Kankeu Fonkoua; Nelson S Yee
Journal:  Biomedicines       Date:  2018-03-09

Review 5.  [Role of RRM1 in the Treatment and Prognosis of Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer].

Authors:  Jiawei Tian; Shuhua Han
Journal:  Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi       Date:  2015-06

6.  RRM1 expression and the clinicopathological characteristics of patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with gemcitabine.

Authors:  Ying Chen; Ying Huang; Dong-Ming Chen; Chao Wu; Qiu-Ping Leng; Wen-Yi Wang; Ming-Qin Deng; Yan-Xia Zhao; Xiao-Hong Yang
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Identification of chemoresistance-related mRNAs based on gemcitabine-resistant pancreatic cancer cell lines.

Authors:  Jiarong Zhou; Linshi Zhang; Huilin Zheng; Wenhao Ge; Yu Huang; Yingcai Yan; Xiaohu Zhou; Wei Zhu; Yang Kong; Yuan Ding; Weilin Wang
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2019-12-11       Impact factor: 4.452

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.