| Literature DB >> 26622786 |
Changmao Ding1, Huiyu Zhang1, Kuisheng Chen2, Chunlin Zhao3, Jianbo Gao1.
Abstract
The aim of the current study was to investigate the role of polymorphisms in DNA repair pathways on the clinical outcome of gastric cancer patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. A total of 380 gastric cancer patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy were included in the present study. The genotypes of ERCC1 rs11615 (Asn118Asn) and rs3212986 (*197G>T), ERCC2 rs1799793 (Asn312Asp) and rs13181 (Lys751Gln), NBN rs1805794 (Gln185Gln) and rs1063054 (*1209A>C), RAD51 rs1801321 (-61G>T) and rs12593359 (*502T>G), and XRCC3 rs861539 (Thr241Met) were determined by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism, according to the manufacturer's instructions. The TC+CC genotypes of ERCC1 rs11615 and GA+AA genotypes of ERCC2 rs1799793 were found to be associated with improved response to chemotherapy, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.66 (95% CI, 1.07-2.56) and 1.61 (95% CI, 1.05-2.49), respectively. Based on the results of Cox analysis, patients with TC+CC genotypes of ERCC1 rs11615 and GA+AA genotypes of ERCC2 rs1799793 exhibited a significantly decreased risk of mortality, with hazard ratios of 1.71 (95% CI, 1.06-2.72) and 1.97 (95% CI, 1.28-3.03), respectively. In conclusion, these results suggest that ERCC1 rs11615 and ERCC2 rs1799793 in the DNA repair pathways may be used as predictive factors of the clinical outcome in gastric cancer patients.Entities:
Keywords: DNA repair pathway; clinical outcome; gastric cancer; single nucleotide polymorphism
Year: 2015 PMID: 26622786 PMCID: PMC4579803 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2015.3510
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncol Lett ISSN: 1792-1074 Impact factor: 2.967
Association between demographic and clinical characteristics and overall survival of gastric cancer.
| Variable | Patients, n (%) | Median survival time, months | HR (95% CI) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | ||||
| <60 | 161 (42.37) | 18.5 | 1.00 (ref.) | - |
| ≥60 | 219 (57.63) | 21.2 | 0.87 (0.62–1.15) | 0.18 |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 244 (64.21) | 19.8 | 1.00 (ref.) | - |
| Female | 136 (35.79) | 20.6 | 0.95 (0.76–1.22) | 0.16 |
| Smoking status | ||||
| Never | 214 (56.32) | 23.2 | 1.00 (ref.) | - |
| Yes | 166 (43.68) | 15.6 | 1.42 (0.95–1.73) | 0.11 |
| Drinking status | ||||
| Never | 172 (45.26) | 22.1 | 1.00 (ref.) | - |
| Yes | 208 (54.74) | 16.8 | 1.36 (0.86–1.52) | 0.08 |
| Histological type | ||||
| Intestinal | 172 (45.26) | 22.5 | 1.00 (ref.) | - |
| Signet ring | 164 (43.16) | 20.2 | 1.15 (0.83–1.25) | 0.25 |
| Other | 44 (11.58) | 17.9 | 1.27 (0.72–1.39) | 0.12 |
| Histological grade | ||||
| Moderate-poor | 132 (34.74) | 23.4 | 1.00 (ref.) | - |
| Poor | 248 (65.26) | 18.6 | 1.22 (0.81–1.32) | 0.17 |
| TNM stage | ||||
| I–II | 146 (38.42) | 24.3 | 1.00 (ref.) | - |
| III–IV | 234 (61.58) | 15.6 | 2.54 (1.46–3.28) | 0.007 |
HR, hazard ratio; CI confidence interval; ref., reference value; TNM, tumor-node-metasis (19).
Association between the included nine SNPs and response to chemotherapy.
| All patients | Good response (n=223) | Poor response (n=157) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNP | n | % | n | % | n | % | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | P-value |
| 0.02 | ||||||||
| TT | 173 | 45.53 | 90 | 40.4 | 83 | 52.87 | 1.00 (Ref.) | |
| TC+CC | 207 | 54.47 | 133 | 59.64 | 74 | 47.13 | 1.66 (1.07–2.56) | |
| 0.05 | ||||||||
| GG | 202 | 53.16 | 105 | 47.09 | 90 | 57.32 | 1.00 (Ref.) | |
| GT+TT | 178 | 46.84 | 118 | 52.91 | 67 | 42.68 | 1.48 (0.96–2.29) | |
| 0.02 | ||||||||
| GG | 165 | 43.42 | 86 | 38.57 | 79 | 50.32 | 1.00 (Ref.) | |
| GA+AA | 215 | 56.58 | 137 | 61.43 | 78 | 49.68 | 1.61 (1.05–2.49) | |
| 0.82 | ||||||||
| AA | 160 | 42.11 | 92 | 41.26 | 67 | 42.68 | 1.00 (Ref.) | |
| AC+CC | 220 | 57.89 | 131 | 58.74 | 90 | 57.32 | 1.05 (0.68–1.62) | |
| 0.39 | ||||||||
| GG | 119 | 31.32 | 75 | 33.63 | 47 | 29.94 | 1.00 (Ref.) | |
| GC+CC | 261 | 68.68 | 148 | 66.37 | 110 | 70.06 | 0.82 (0.52–1.31) | |
| 0.48 | ||||||||
| AA | 171 | 45.00 | 105 | 47.09 | 68 | 43.31 | 1.00 (Ref.) | |
| AC+CC | 209 | 55.00 | 118 | 52.91 | 89 | 56.69 | 0.86 (0.56–1.33) | |
| 0.79 | ||||||||
| GG | 135 | 35.53 | 81 | 36.32 | 55 | 35.03 | 1.00 (Ref.) | |
| GT+TT | 245 | 64.47 | 142 | 63.68 | 102 | 64.97 | 0.94 (0.60–1.48) | |
| 0.63 | ||||||||
| TT | 147 | 38.68 | 90 | 40.36 | 59 | 37.58 | 1.00 (Ref.) | |
| TG+GG | 233 | 61.32 | 133 | 59.64 | 98 | 62.42 | 0.90 (0.58–1.40) | |
| 0.51 | ||||||||
| CC | 242 | 63.68 | 147 | 65.92 | 98 | 62.42 | 1.00 (Ref.) | |
| CT+TT | 138 | 36.32 | 76 | 34.08 | 59 | 37.58 | 0.87 (0.55–1.36) | |
SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; Ref., reference group; ERCC1, excision repair cross-complementation group 1; ERCC2, excision repair cross-complementation group 2; NBN, nibrin; RAD51, RAD51 recombinase; XRCC3, X-ray complementing defective repair in Chinese hamster cells 3.
Association between included nine SNPs and overall survival in gastric cancer patients.
| Patients, n (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNP | Median survival time, months | P-value (log-rank) | Survived (n=204) | Succumbed (n=176) | HR (95% CI) | Adjusted P-value |
| 0.02 | ||||||
| TT | 23.30 | 82 (40.20) | 91 (51.70) | 1.00 (Ref.) | ||
| TC+CC | 33.20 | 0.017 | 122 (59.80) | 85 (48.30) | 1.71 (1.06–2.72) | |
| 0.04 | ||||||
| GG | 26.40 | 100 (49.02) | 102 (50.00) | 1.00 (Ref.) | ||
| GT+TT | 31.70 | 0.07 | 104 (50.98) | 74 (36.27) | 1.48 (0.96–2.29) | |
| 0.001 | ||||||
| GG | 23.10 | 73 (35.78) | 92 (52.27) | 1.00 (Ref.) | ||
| GA+AA | 34.80 | 0.005 | 131 (64.22) | 84 (47.73) | 1.97 (1.28–3.03) | |
| 0.82 | ||||||
| AA | 28.90 | 89 (43.63) | 71 (34.80) | 1.00 (Ref.) | ||
| AC+CC | 29.50 | 0.52 | 115 (56.37) | 105 (51.47) | 1.05 (0.68–1.62) | |
| 0.39 | ||||||
| GG | 30.40 | 76 (37.25) | 43 (21.08) | 1.00 (Ref.) | ||
| GC+CC | 28.80 | 0.19 | 128 (62.75) | 133 (65.20) | 0.82 (0.52–1.31) | |
| 0.48 | ||||||
| AA | 31.10 | 104 (50.98) | 67 (32.84) | 1.00 (Ref.) | ||
| AC+CC | 28.90 | 0.13 | 100 (49.02) | 109 (53.43) | 0.86 (0.56–1.33) | |
| 0.79 | ||||||
| GG | 32.30 | 85 (41.67) | 50 (24.51) | 1.00 (Ref.) | ||
| GT+TT | 27.60 | 0.21 | 119 (58.33) | 126 (61.76) | 0.94 (0.60–1.48) | |
| 0.63 | ||||||
| TT | 30.90 | 91 (44.61) | 56 (27.45) | 1.00 (Ref.) | ||
| TG+GG | 27.10 | 0.25 | 113 (55.39) | 120 (58.82) | 0.90 (0.58–1.40) | |
| 0.51 | ||||||
| CC | 30.60 | 138 (67.65) | 104 (50.98) | 1.00 (Ref.) | ||
| CT+TT | 28.30 | 0.43 | 66 (32.35) | 72 (35.29) | 0.87 (0.55–1.36) | |
SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; Ref., reference group; ERCC1, excision repair cross-complementation group 1; ERCC2, excision repair cross-complementation group 2; NBN, nibrin; RAD51, RAD51 recombinase; XRCC3, X-ray complementing defective repair in Chinese hamster cells 3.
Figure 1.Influence of ERCC1 rs11615 polymorphisms on overall survival of gastric cancer patients. ERCC1, excision repair cross-complementation group 1
Figure 2.Influence of ERCC2 rs1799793 polymorphisms on survival of gastric cancer patients. ERCC2, excision repair cross-complementation group 2