4.2 Article

DPYD, TYMS, TYMP, TK1, and TK2 Genetic Expressions as Response Markers in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Patients Treated with Fluoropyrimidine-Based Chemoradiotherapy

期刊

BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 2013, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2013/931028

关键词

-

资金

  1. Excellence for cancer research center through Department of Health, Executive Yuan, Taiwan [DOH102-TD-C-111-002]
  2. Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital [KMUH100-0M48, KMUH101-1M66]
  3. Biosignature in Colorectal Cancers, Academia Sinica, Taiwan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study is to investigate multiple chemotherapeutic agent-and radiation-related genetic biomarkers in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients following fluoropyrimidine-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for response prediction. We initially selected 6 fluoropyrimidine metabolism-related genes (DPYD, ORPT, TYMS, TYMP, TK1, and TK2) and 3 radiotherapy response-related genes (GLUT1, HIF-1 alpha, and HIF-2 alpha) as targets for gene expression identification in 60 LARC cancer specimens. Subsequently, a high-sensitivity weighted enzymatic chip array was designed and constructed to predict responses following CCRT. After CCRT, 39 of 60 (65%) LARC patients were classified as responders (pathological tumor regression grade 2 similar to 4). Using a panel of multiple genetic biomarkers (chip), including DPYD, TYMS, TYMP, TK1, and TK2, at a cutoff value for 3 positive genes, a sensitivity of 89.7% and a specificity of 81% were obtained (AUC: 0.915; 95% CI: 0.840-0.991). Negative chip results were significantly correlated to poor CCRT responses (TRG 0-1) (P = 0.014, hazard ratio: 22.704, 95% CI: 3.055-235.448 in multivariate analysis). Disease-free survival analysis showed significantly better survival rate in patients with positive chip results (P = 0.0001). We suggest that a chip including DPYD, TYMS, TYMP, TK1, and TK2 genes is a potential tool to predict response in LARC following fluoropyrimidine-based CCRT.

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

4.2
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