4.7 Article

Two-marker protein profile predicts poor prognosis in patients with early rectal cancer

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 99, Issue 10, Pages 1712-1717

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604729

Keywords

rectal cancer; prognosis; tumour marker; immunohistochemistry; receiver operating characteristic curve

Categories

Funding

  1. Novartis Foundation
  2. Ciba-Geigy-Jubilee-Foundation
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to establish an immunohistochemical protein profile to complement preoperative staging and identify rectal cancer patients at high-risk of adverse outcome. Immunohistochemistry was performed on a tissue microarray including 482 rectal cancers for APAF-1, EphB2, MST1, Ki67, p53, RHAMM, RKIP and CD8(+) tumour infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). After resampling of the data and multivariable analysis, the most reproducible markers were combined and prognosis evaluated as stratified by pT and pN status. In multivariable analysis, only positive RHAMM (P < 0.001; HR=1.94 (1.44-2.61)) and loss of CD8(+) TILs (P=0.006; HR=0.63 (0.45-0.88)) were independent prognostic factors. The 5-year cancer- specific survival rate for RHAMM+/TIL-patients was 30% (95% CI 21-40%) compared to 76% (95% CI: 66-84%) for RHAMM-/TIL+ patients (P < 0.001). The 5-year cancerspecific survival of T1/T2/RHAMM+/TIL-patients was 48% (20-72%) and significantly worse compared to T3/T4/RHAMM-/ TIL+ patients (71% 95% CI 56-82%); P=0.039). Stratifying by nodal status, only N+/RHAMM+/TIL-patients demonstrated a significantly worse prognosis than N0/RHAMM+/TIL-patients (P=0.005). Loss of CD8(+) TILs was predictive of local recurrence in RHAMM+tumours (P=0.009) only. RHAMM and CD8(+) TILs may assist in identifying early stage rectal cancer patients facing a particularly poor prognosis and who may derive a benefit from preoperative therapy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available