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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |