4.5 Article

Lack of Prognostic Significance of Serum DNA Methylation of DAPK, MGMT, and GSTPI in Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 100, Issue 5, Pages 414-417

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.21348

Keywords

lung cancer; biomarker; DNA methylation; prognosis

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Objectives: To further improve the screening, diagnosis and therapy of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) additional diagnostic tools are desperately warranted. Aim of this study was to investigate the potential of the DNA methylation of DAPK, MGMT, and GSTPI in serum of patients with NSCLC as a prognostic molecular marker in this disease. Methods: Seventy-six patients with NSCLC were included in this study. The analysis of DNA methylation in serum of patients was performed on pre-operative samples. Following DNA isolation and bisulfite-treatment, DNA methylation was analyzed by quantitative-methylation-specific real-time PCR with beta-actin as the internal reference gene. Results: DNA methylation was detectable with following frequencies: DAPK 68.4%, MGMT 7.9%, GSTPI 0%. There were no associations between DNA methylation status and histology, tumor stage, grading or gender detectable. With a mean follow-up of 19.7 months the median survival was 26.3 months. There were no associations between the status of DNA methylation in patient's serum and prognosis detectable. Conclusion: The analysis of DNA methylation in serum of patients with NSCLC by quantitative-methylation-specific real-time PCR is technically feasible. Although our results suggest quantification of DNA methylation in serum not of prognostic significance in this disease, further studies are warranted to determine the future potential of this molecular approach. J. Surg. Oncol. 2009;100:414-417. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available