4.7 Article

Combination of variations in inflammation- and endoplasmic reticulum-associated genes as putative biomarker for bevacizumab response in KRAS wild-type colorectal cancer

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-65869-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union Seventh Framework Programme FP7 [278981]
  2. Science Foundation Ireland [14/IA/2582, 13/CDA/2183]
  3. Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) [13/CDA/2183, 14/IA/2582] Funding Source: Science Foundation Ireland (SFI)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemotherapy combined with the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab (BVZ) is approved as a first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Limited clinical benefit underpins the need for improved understanding of resistance mechanisms and the elucidation of novel predictive biomarkers. We assessed germline single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 180 mCRC patients (Angiopredict [APD] cohort) treated with combined BVZ+chemotherapy and investigated previously reported predictive SNPs. We further employed a machine learning approach to identify novel associations. In the APD cohort IL8 rs4073 any A carriers, compared to TT carriers, were associated with worse progression-free survival (PFS) (HR=1.51, 95% CI:1.03-2.22, p-value=0.037) and TBK1 rs7486100 TT carriers, compared to any A carriers, were associated with worse PFS in KRAS wild-type (wt) patients (HR=1.94, 95% CI:1.04-3.61, p-value=0.037), replicating previous findings. Machine learning identified novel associations in genes encoding the inflammasome protein NLRP1 and the ER protein Sarcalumenin (SRL). A negative association between PFS and carriers of any A at NLRP1 rs12150220 and AA for SRL rs13334970 in APD KRAS wild-type patients (HR=4.44, 95% CI:1.23-16.13, p-value=0.005), which validated in two independent clinical cohorts involving BVZ, MAVERICC and TRIBE. Our findings highlight a key role for inflammation and ER signalling underpinning BVZ+chemotherapy responsiveness.

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

4.7
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