| Literature DB >> 26076815 |
Hou-Qun Ying1, Jie Chen2, Bang-Shun He3, Yu-Qin Pan3, Feng Wang3, Qi-Wen Deng3, Hui-Ling Sun2, Xian Liu3, Shu-Kui Wang3.
Abstract
A common deletion polymorphism within B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia-lymphoma like 11 gene (BIM) was deemed to be a genetic cause leading to compromised kinase inhibitor therapeutic efficacy in cancer individuals. However, the results reported were not consistent. Thus, a comprehensive meta-analysis containing 12 eligible studies including 1,532 Asian patients was conducted to investigate a steady and reliable conclusion. The results showed that BIM deletion polymorphism was significantly associated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) clinical efficacy in term of response rate (Ph = 0.349, HR = 0.438, 95%CI = 0.274-0.699) and disease control rate (Ph = 0.941, HR = 0.370, 95%CI = 0.202-0.678) in EGFR-mutated NSCLC population, not in CML and HCC subgroups. Additionally, EGFR-mutated NSCLC patient harbored BIM deletion polymorphism was associated with a shorter progression-free survival (PFS) than those with BIM wild polymorphism (Ph = 0.580, adjusted HR = 2.194, 95%CI = 1.710-2.814). However, no significant association was examined between BIM deletion polymorphism and overall survival (OS) and toxic adverse events in EGFR-mutated NSCLC population and it was not associated with PFS and OS in HCC subgroup. These findings revealed that BIM deletion polymorphism might be a genetic cause of intrinsic resistance to TKI therapy and it could be emerged as an independent predictor to identify patients who would benefit from TKI targeted therapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26076815 PMCID: PMC4466895 DOI: 10.1038/srep11348
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Flow chart of eligible study selection.
The baseline characteristics of the study included in this study.
| Ng 2012[1] | Singapore, Malaysia | Asian | 138 | 58.70% | — | Imatinib | ELN | Retrospective | Optimal response | Suboptimal response or failure | Sensitive, resistant | |
| Ng 2012[2] | Japan | Asian | 65 | 56.90% | — | Imatinib | ELN | Retrospective | Optimal response | Suboptimal response or failure | Sensitive, resistant | |
| Ng 2012[3] | Singapore, Japan | Asian | Mutant | 141 | 33.30% | III-IV, relapse | Gefitinib, erlotinib | — | Retrospective | — | — | PFS |
| Katagiri 2013 | Japan | Asian | 37 | — | — | Imatinib | ELN | Retrospective | Sustained CMR for >24 months | Fluctuating CMR for >24 months | Sustained or fluctuating CMR for >24 months | |
| Lee 2013 | Korea | Asian | Mutant | 193 | 37.10% | IIIB-IV, relapse | Gefitinib, erlotinib | RESCIST 1.1 | Retrospective | CR/PR | SD/PD | RR, DCR, PFS |
| Shao 2013 | Taiwan | Asian | HCC | 89 | 89.90% | II-IV | Sorafenib | RESCIST 1.1 | Retrospective | CR/PR | SD/PD | RR, DCR, PFS, OS, |
| Shinohara 2013 | Japan | Asian | 144 | 65.80% | — | Imatinib | ELN | Prospective | CMR | Non-CMR | CMR, non-CMR | |
| Zheng 2013 | China | Asian | Mutant | 123 | 49.60% | IIIB-IV | Gefitinib, erlotinib | RESCIST 1.1, CTC3.0 | Retrospective | CR/PR | SD/PD | RR, DCR, PFS, adverse events |
| Chen 2014 | China | Asian | 220 | 50.90% | — | Imatinib | ELN | Retrospective | Optimal response | Suboptimal response or failure | Sensitive, resistant | |
| Isobe 2014 | Japan | Asian | Mutant | 70 | 27.10% | IV, relapse | Gefitinib, erlotinib | RESCIST 1.1, CTC3.0 | Retrospective | CR/PR | SD/PD | RR, DCR, PFS, OS, adverse events |
| Lee 2014[1] | Korea, Taiwan | Asian | Mutant | 146 | 39.20% | IIIB-IV | Gefitinib, erlotinib, afatinib | RESCIST 1.1 | Prospective | CR/PR | SD/PD | RR, PFS, OS |
| Zhao 2014 | China | Asian | Mutant | 166 | 48.20% | IIIB- IV | Gefitinib, erlotinib | RESCIST 1.1 | Retrospective | CR/PR | SD/PD | RR, DCR, PFS |
Abbreviation: CML: chronic myeloid leukemia; NSCLC: non-small cell lung cancer; HCC: hepatocellular cancer; ELN: European leukemiaNet criteria; RSCST: response evaluation criteria in solid tumors; CTC: national cancer institute common terminology criteria; CMR: complete molecular response; CR: complete response; PR: partial response; PD: progressive disease; SD: stable disease; RR: response rate; DCR: disease control rate; PFS: progression-free survival; OS: Overall survival.
Meta-analysis results of the association between BIM deletion polymorphism and response rate and disease control rate.
| NSCLC | 5 (698) | 0.349 (10.1%) | 0.769 | 0.438 (0.274–0.699) | 0.450 (0.269–0.753) | 4 (552) | 0.941(0.0%) | 0.136 | 0.370 (0.202–0.678) | 0.364 (0.200–0.664) |
| CML | 5 (604) | 0.143 (41.8%) | 0.393 | 0.888 (0.537–1.470) | 0.797 (0.373–1.703) | — | — | — | — | — |
| HCC | 1 (89) | — | — | 1.875 (0.194–18.102) | 1.875 (0.194–18.102) | 1 (89) | — | — | 0.791 (0.197–3.174) | 0.791 (0.197–3.174) |
Abbreviation: NSCLC: non-small cell lung cancer; CML: chronic myeloid leukemia; HCC: hepatocellular cancer; Ph: p-value of heterogeneity test; Pe: p-value of egger’s test; OR: odds ratio; 95%CI: 95% confidential interval.
Figure 2The results of meta-analysis of association between BIM deletion polymorphism and response rate and disease control rate of kinase inhibitor therapy in malignancy.
(A): BIM deletion polymorphism and response rate; (B): BIM deletion polymorphism and disease control rate.
Meta-analysis results of the association between BIM deletion polymorphism and progression-free and overall survivals.
| NSCLC | 6 (839) | 2.000 (1.629–2.455) | 2.067 (1.591–2.685) | 2.194 (1.710–2.814) | 2.194 (1.710–2.814) | 2 (216) | 1.419 (0.893–2.256) | 1.361 (0.559–3.315) | — | — |
| HCC | 1 (89) | 0.720 (0.364–1.422) | 0.720 (0.364–1.422) | 0.866 (0.408–1.837) | 0.866 (0.408–1.837) | 1 (89) | 1.170 (0.740–1.850) | 1.170 (0.740–1.850) | 0.668 (0.300–1.500) | 0.668 (0.300–1.500) |
Abbreviation: NSCLC: non-small cell lung cancer; HCC: hepatocellular cancer; HR: hazard ratio; 95%CI: 95% confidential interval.
Figure 3The results of meta-analysis of association between BIM deletion polymorphism and progression-free, overall survival in malignancy with kinase inhibitor therapy.
(A) BIM deletion polymorphism and progression-free survival; (B) BIM deletion polymorphism and overall survival.
Figure 4Begg’s funnel plots of BIM deletion polymorphism and response rate, disease control rate and progression-free survival in malignancy with kinase inhibitor therapy.
(A) BIM deletion polymorphism and response rate; (B) BIM deletion polymorphism and disease control rate; (C) BIM deletion polymorphism and progression-free survival.