4.5 Article

The immunohistochemical overexpression of ribonucleotide reductase regulatory subunit M1 (RRM1) protein is a predictor of shorter survival to gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)

期刊

LUNG CANCER
卷 70, 期 2, 页码 205-210

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2010.02.005

关键词

Chemotherapy; Gemcitabine; Immunohistochemistry; NSCLC; RRM1

资金

  1. Kyung Hee University for young researchers in Medical Science [KHU-2007-1486]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated whether ribonucleotide reductase regulatory subunit M1 (RRM1) protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a predictor of survival and response in gemcitabine-treated, advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We retrospectively collected 40 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded NSCLC tissues to investigate the protein expression of RRM1 by IHC with a purified rabbit anti-human RRM1 polyclonal antibody (ProteinTech Group, Chicago, IL, USA). RRM1 expression was positive in 14 (35%) and negative in 26(65%) cases. Ten (25%) patients were treated as first-line and 30 (75%) patients as second-line. The median age was 61 years and M/F was 31/9. Stage IIIB/IV was 7/33 and adenocarcinoma/squamous cell carcinoma/other cell type was 20/16/4. Other characteristics, including age, gender, stage, cell type and first/second-line were not statistically different in the RRM-positive and RRM-negative groups. The overall survival of RRM1-positive groups was significantly shorter than RRM-negative groups (5.1 months vs. 12.9 months, p = 0.022). The response rates of 38 out of 40 patients were assessable. Disease control rate (PR + SD) of the RRM1-positive groups was significantly lower than that of RRM1-negative groups (23% vs. 56%, p = 0.053). In patients with gemcitabine-treated advanced NSCLC, patients with RRM1-positive tumors had worse overall survival and disease control than patients with RRM1-negative tumors. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据