Y Y Juo1, F M Johnston2, D Y Zhang3, H H Juo4, H Wang1, E P Pappou1, T Yu3, H Easwaran5, S Baylin6, M van Engeland7, N Ahuja8. 1. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. 2. Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Danbury Hospital, Danbury. 5. Department of Oncology. 6. Department of Oncology; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA; Department of Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore USA. 7. Department of pathology, GROW School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 8. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore; Department of Oncology; Department of Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore USA; Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA. Electronic address: nahuja@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Divergent findings regarding the prognostic value of CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients exist in current literature. We aim to review data from published studies in order to examine the association between CIMP and CRC prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search for studies reporting disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), or cancer-specific mortality of CRC patients stratified by CIMP is carried out. Study findings are summarized descriptively and quantitatively, using adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) as summary statistics. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies reporting survival in 10 635 patients are included for review. Nineteen studies provide data suitable for meta-analysis. The definition of CIMP regarding gene panel, marker threshold, and laboratory method varies across studies. Pooled analysis shows that CIMP is significantly associated with shorter DFS (pooled HR estimate 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.97, Q = 3.95, I(2) = 0%) and OS (pooled HR estimate 1.43; 95% CI 1.18-1.73, Q = 4.03, I(2) = 0%) among CRC patients irrespective of microsatellite instability (MSI) status. Subgroup analysis of microsatellite stable (MSS) CRC patients also shows significant association between shorter OS (pooled HR estimate 1.37; 95% CI 1.12-1.68, Q = 4.45, I(2) = 33%) and CIMP. Seven studies have explored CIMP's value as a predictive factor on stage II and III CRC patient's DFS after receiving adjuvant 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) therapy: of these, four studies showed that adjuvant chemotherapy conferred a DFS benefit among CIMP(+) patients, one concluded to the contrary, and two found no significant correlation. Insufficient data was present for statistical synthesis of CIMP's predictive value among CRC patients receiving adjuvant 5-FU therapy. CONCLUSION: CIMP is independently associated with significantly worse prognosis in CRC patients. However, CIMP's value as a predictive factor in assessing whether adjuvant 5-FU therapy will confer additional survival benefit to CRC patients remained to be determined through future prospective randomized studies.
BACKGROUND: Divergent findings regarding the prognostic value of CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients exist in current literature. We aim to review data from published studies in order to examine the association between CIMP and CRC prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search for studies reporting disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), or cancer-specific mortality of CRCpatients stratified by CIMP is carried out. Study findings are summarized descriptively and quantitatively, using adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) as summary statistics. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies reporting survival in 10 635 patients are included for review. Nineteen studies provide data suitable for meta-analysis. The definition of CIMP regarding gene panel, marker threshold, and laboratory method varies across studies. Pooled analysis shows that CIMP is significantly associated with shorter DFS (pooled HR estimate 1.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.97, Q = 3.95, I(2) = 0%) and OS (pooled HR estimate 1.43; 95% CI 1.18-1.73, Q = 4.03, I(2) = 0%) among CRCpatients irrespective of microsatellite instability (MSI) status. Subgroup analysis of microsatellite stable (MSS) CRCpatients also shows significant association between shorter OS (pooled HR estimate 1.37; 95% CI 1.12-1.68, Q = 4.45, I(2) = 33%) and CIMP. Seven studies have explored CIMP's value as a predictive factor on stage II and III CRCpatient's DFS after receiving adjuvant 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) therapy: of these, four studies showed that adjuvant chemotherapy conferred a DFS benefit among CIMP(+) patients, one concluded to the contrary, and two found no significant correlation. Insufficient data was present for statistical synthesis of CIMP's predictive value among CRCpatients receiving adjuvant 5-FU therapy. CONCLUSION:CIMP is independently associated with significantly worse prognosis in CRCpatients. However, CIMP's value as a predictive factor in assessing whether adjuvant 5-FU therapy will confer additional survival benefit to CRCpatients remained to be determined through future prospective randomized studies.
Authors: Anna M Dahlin; Richard Palmqvist; Maria L Henriksson; Maria Jacobsson; Vincy Eklöf; Jörgen Rutegård; Ake Oberg; Bethany R Van Guelpen Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-03-02 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Wade S Samowitz; Carol Sweeney; Jennifer Herrick; Hans Albertsen; Theodore R Levin; Maureen A Murtaugh; Roger K Wolff; Martha L Slattery Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-07-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Marius Van Rijnsoever; Hany Elsaleh; David Joseph; Kieran McCaul; Barry Iacopetta Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-08-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ludovic Barault; Céline Charon-Barra; Valérie Jooste; Mathilde Funes de la Vega; Laurent Martin; Patrick Roignot; Patrick Rat; Anne-Marie Bouvier; Pierre Laurent-Puig; Jean Faivre; Caroline Chapusot; Francoise Piard Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2008-10-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Janelle B Pakish; Qian Zhang; Zhongyuan Chen; Han Liang; Gary B Chisholm; Ying Yuan; Samuel C Mok; Russell R Broaddus; Karen H Lu; Melinda S Yates Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Oscar Murcia; Miriam Juárez; Eva Hernández-Illán; Cecilia Egoavil; Mar Giner-Calabuig; María Rodríguez-Soler; Rodrigo Jover Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-04-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: A Joan Levine; Amanda I Phipps; John A Baron; Daniel D Buchanan; Dennis J Ahnen; Stacey A Cohen; Noralane M Lindor; Polly A Newcomb; Christophe Rosty; Robert W Haile; Peter W Laird; Daniel J Weisenberger Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2015-10-28 Impact factor: 4.254