4.3 Article

ERCC1 Is a Predictive Biomarker for Non-small Cell Lung Cancer But Is Antibody-dependent

期刊

ANTICANCER RESEARCH
卷 41, 期 5, 页码 2653-2660

出版社

INT INST ANTICANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15046

关键词

Key Words; Non-small cell lung cancer; ERCC1; platinum drug; chemotherapy

类别

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI (Tokyo, Japan) [16K19313]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K19313] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study explored the relationship between ERCC1 expression levels and the efficacy of platinum-containing chemotherapy, revealing that patients with low ERCC1 expression had better disease control rates. However, inconsistencies were observed in the immunohistochemical assessment results at different time points, highlighting the need for standardized technology to evaluate ERCC1 expression.
Background/Aim: To predict the efficacy of platinum-containing chemotherapy, ERCC1 expression levels were investigated. Studies have shown changes in the performance of anti-ERCC1 antibodies; therefore, predicting chemotherapy efficacy by immunohistochemical assessment of ERCC1 is controversial. Patients and Methods: Twenty-eight patients who received platinum-containing chemotherapy and underwent computed tomography evaluation 6-9 weeks after therapy initiation were retrospectively identified. The tumor samples were evaluated in 2012 and 2018 using the latest antiERCC1 antibodies available at those times. Results: In 2012, the ERCC1 H-score was significantly higher in patients with disease progression than in patients without disease progression (p=0.019). Although the same trend was shown in 2018, there were some inconsistent results between the 2012 and 2018 samples. Conclusion: Patients with tumors showing low ERCC1 expression had a better disease control rate on platinum containing chemotherapy. However, since the performance of the antibody changed over time, standardized technology to evaluate ERCC1 expression is needed.

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

4.3
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