4.4 Article

TFAP2E Methylation Status and Prognosis of Patients with Radically Resected Colorectal Cancer

Journal

ONCOLOGY
Volume 88, Issue 2, Pages 122-132

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000362820

Keywords

TFAP2E; DNA methylation; Colorectal cancer; Prognostic factor; Chemoresistance

Categories

Funding

  1. Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI07C0001]
  2. Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Seoul, Korea [2012-231]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: This study investigates the clinical significance of the gene encoding AP-2E (TFAP2E) in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients undergoing curative resection. Methods: A single-institution cohort of 248 patients who underwent curative resection of stage I/II/III CRCs between March and December 2004 was enrolled, and 193 patients whose tumors were available for the determination of the TFAP2E methylation status were included in the analysis. Results: TFAP2E hypermethylation was detected in 112 patients (58%) and was significantly associated with distally located CRCs, low pathologic T stage (T1/T2), and stage I tumors. After a median follow-up of 86.3 months, the patients with TFAP2E hypermethylation tended to show better relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) than the patients with TFAP2E hypomethylation (5-year RFS rate: 90 vs. 80%, p = 0.063; 6-year OS rate: 88 vs. 80%, p = 0.083). Multivariate analysis showed that the pathologic nodal stage and TFAP2E methylation status were independent prognostic factors for RFS and OS, and they remained significant factors in the subgroup analysis that included 154 patients with stage II/III CRCs who had received adjuvant chemotherapy. Conclusions: TFAP2E hypermethylation is associated with good clinical outcomes and may be considered as an independent prognostic factor in patients with curatively resected CRCs. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available