4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

XPD and XRCC1 genetic polymorphisms are prognostic factors in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with platinum chemotherapy

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 22, 期 13, 页码 2594-2601

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2004.08.067

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [5T32 CA71345-07, CA092824, CA74386, CA90578] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Platinum agents cause DNA cross-linking and oxidative damage. Genetic polymorphisms of DNA repair genes are associated with differential DNA repair activity and may explain interindividual differences in overall survival after therapy with platinum agents for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods We used polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism to evaluate genetic polymorphisms of the XPD (Asp312Asn) and XRCC1 (Arg399Gln) DNA repair genes in 103 patients with stage III (54%) and IV (46%) NSCLC treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. Results Median age was 58 years (range, 32 to 77 years), 49% were females, and there were 86 deaths. Median follow-up period was 61.9 months. Median survival time (MST) was 14.9 months; by stage, MST was 28.6 months (IIIA), 16.0 months (IIIB), and 9.3 months (IV). Genotypes were not associated with stage. Increasing numbers of either XPD or XRCC1 variant alleles were associated with shorter overall survival (P = .003 and P = .07, respectively, by log-rank test). Similarly, when we compared combinations of variant alleles across both polymorphisms, we found that a greater number of variant alleles was associated with decreasing overall survival (P = .009, log-rank test). These polymorphisms independently predicted overall survival even after taking into account stage, performance status, and chemotherapy regimen. Conclusion Genetic polymorphisms in XPD and XRCC1 may be important prognostic factors in platinum-treated patients with advanced NSCLC. (C) 2004 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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