4.5 Article

ERCC1 expression in circulating tumor cells (CTCs) using a novel detection platform correlates with progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving platinum chemotherapy

期刊

LUNG CANCER
卷 77, 期 2, 页码 421-426

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.04.005

关键词

Circulating tumor cells; Prognostic diagnostic; ERCC1; Non-small-cell lung cancer; Platinum-based chemotherapy

资金

  1. NIH [CA 111359, CA 125653]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To utilize a novel circulating tumor cell (CC) technology to quantify ERCC1 expression on CTCs and determine whether ERCC1 expression levels predict efficacy of platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Experimental design: ERCC1 expression was measured in 17 metastatic NSCLC patients who received platinum-based therapy and had >= 2 intact CTCs with acceptable ERCC1 expression assay results. ERCC1 levels were determined from average expression on individual CTCs in each sample. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from the date of therapy initiation. Results: PFS decreased with increasing ERCC1 expression (p < 0.04, F-test, linear regression). Lack of ERCC1 expression was associated with longer PFS (266 days versus 172 days, log-rank,p < 0.02)in a Kaplan-Meier analysis using ERCC expression level of 1 as a cutoff (range 0-30). The difference in survival was statistically significant with a hazard ratio of 4.20 (95% CI 1.25-14.1, p < 0.02, log-rank). PFS was also observed to decrease with increased cytokeratin (CK) expression (p < 0.01 long-rank (Cox regression) and F-test (linear regression)). The hazard ratio is 4.38 (95% Cl 1.76-10.9) for each log-change in CK value until progression was noted on imaging. Conclusion: Low expression of ERCC1 on CTCs correlates with PFS in patients with metastatic NSCLC receiving platinum-based therapy. (C) 2012 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