Cargando…

Stratification and Prognostic Relevance of Jass’s Molecular Classification of Colorectal Cancer

Background: The current proposed model of colorectal tumorigenesis is based primarily on CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP), microsatellite instability (MSI), KRAS, BRAF, and methylation status of 0-6-Methylguanine DNA Methyltransferase (MGMT) and classifies tumors into five subgroups. The aim o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zlobec, Inti, Bihl, Michel P., Foerster, Anja, Rufle, Alex, Terracciano, Luigi, Lugli, Alessandro
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Research Foundation 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3356027/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22655257
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2012.00007
_version_ 1782233483447369728
author Zlobec, Inti
Bihl, Michel P.
Foerster, Anja
Rufle, Alex
Terracciano, Luigi
Lugli, Alessandro
author_facet Zlobec, Inti
Bihl, Michel P.
Foerster, Anja
Rufle, Alex
Terracciano, Luigi
Lugli, Alessandro
author_sort Zlobec, Inti
collection PubMed
description Background: The current proposed model of colorectal tumorigenesis is based primarily on CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP), microsatellite instability (MSI), KRAS, BRAF, and methylation status of 0-6-Methylguanine DNA Methyltransferase (MGMT) and classifies tumors into five subgroups. The aim of this study is to validate this molecular classification and test its prognostic relevance. Methods: Three hundred two patients were included in this study. Molecular analysis was performed for five CIMP-related promoters (CRABP1, MLH1, p16INK4a, CACNA1G, NEUROG1), MGMT, MSI, KRAS, and BRAF. Methylation in at least 4 promoters or in one to three promoters was considered CIMP-high and CIMP-low (CIMP-H/L), respectively. Results: CIMP-H, CIMP-L, and CIMP-negative were found in 7.1, 43, and 49.9% cases, respectively. One hundred twenty-three tumors (41%) could not be classified into any one of the proposed molecular subgroups, including 107 CIMP-L, 14 CIMP-H, and two CIMP-negative cases. The 10 year survival rate for CIMP-high patients [22.6% (95%CI: 7–43)] was significantly lower than for CIMP-L or CIMP-negative (p = 0.0295). Only the combined analysis of BRAF and CIMP (negative versus L/H) led to distinct prognostic subgroups. Conclusion: Although CIMP status has an effect on outcome, our results underline the need for standardized definitions of low- and high-level CIMP, which clearly hinders an effective prognostic and molecular classification of colorectal cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3356027
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Frontiers Research Foundation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33560272012-05-31 Stratification and Prognostic Relevance of Jass’s Molecular Classification of Colorectal Cancer Zlobec, Inti Bihl, Michel P. Foerster, Anja Rufle, Alex Terracciano, Luigi Lugli, Alessandro Front Oncol Oncology Background: The current proposed model of colorectal tumorigenesis is based primarily on CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP), microsatellite instability (MSI), KRAS, BRAF, and methylation status of 0-6-Methylguanine DNA Methyltransferase (MGMT) and classifies tumors into five subgroups. The aim of this study is to validate this molecular classification and test its prognostic relevance. Methods: Three hundred two patients were included in this study. Molecular analysis was performed for five CIMP-related promoters (CRABP1, MLH1, p16INK4a, CACNA1G, NEUROG1), MGMT, MSI, KRAS, and BRAF. Methylation in at least 4 promoters or in one to three promoters was considered CIMP-high and CIMP-low (CIMP-H/L), respectively. Results: CIMP-H, CIMP-L, and CIMP-negative were found in 7.1, 43, and 49.9% cases, respectively. One hundred twenty-three tumors (41%) could not be classified into any one of the proposed molecular subgroups, including 107 CIMP-L, 14 CIMP-H, and two CIMP-negative cases. The 10 year survival rate for CIMP-high patients [22.6% (95%CI: 7–43)] was significantly lower than for CIMP-L or CIMP-negative (p = 0.0295). Only the combined analysis of BRAF and CIMP (negative versus L/H) led to distinct prognostic subgroups. Conclusion: Although CIMP status has an effect on outcome, our results underline the need for standardized definitions of low- and high-level CIMP, which clearly hinders an effective prognostic and molecular classification of colorectal cancer. Frontiers Research Foundation 2012-02-27 /pmc/articles/PMC3356027/ /pubmed/22655257 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2012.00007 Text en Copyright © 2012 Zlobec, Bihl, Foerster, Rufle, Terracciano and Lugli. http://www.frontiersin.org/licenseagreement This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial License, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in other forums, provided the original authors and source are credited.
spellingShingle Oncology
Zlobec, Inti
Bihl, Michel P.
Foerster, Anja
Rufle, Alex
Terracciano, Luigi
Lugli, Alessandro
Stratification and Prognostic Relevance of Jass’s Molecular Classification of Colorectal Cancer
title Stratification and Prognostic Relevance of Jass’s Molecular Classification of Colorectal Cancer
title_full Stratification and Prognostic Relevance of Jass’s Molecular Classification of Colorectal Cancer
title_fullStr Stratification and Prognostic Relevance of Jass’s Molecular Classification of Colorectal Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Stratification and Prognostic Relevance of Jass’s Molecular Classification of Colorectal Cancer
title_short Stratification and Prognostic Relevance of Jass’s Molecular Classification of Colorectal Cancer
title_sort stratification and prognostic relevance of jass’s molecular classification of colorectal cancer
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3356027/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22655257
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2012.00007
work_keys_str_mv AT zlobecinti stratificationandprognosticrelevanceofjasssmolecularclassificationofcolorectalcancer
AT bihlmichelp stratificationandprognosticrelevanceofjasssmolecularclassificationofcolorectalcancer
AT foersteranja stratificationandprognosticrelevanceofjasssmolecularclassificationofcolorectalcancer
AT ruflealex stratificationandprognosticrelevanceofjasssmolecularclassificationofcolorectalcancer
AT terraccianoluigi stratificationandprognosticrelevanceofjasssmolecularclassificationofcolorectalcancer
AT luglialessandro stratificationandprognosticrelevanceofjasssmolecularclassificationofcolorectalcancer