4.5 Article

Deficient mismatch repair phenotype is a prognostic factor for colorectal cancer in elderly patients

期刊

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
卷 45, 期 3, 页码 245-250

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2012.09.013

关键词

Aged; Colorectal cancer; DNA mismatch repair; Prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: About 15% of colorectal adenocarcinomas have a deficient DNA mismatch repair phenotype. The frequency of deficient DNA mismatch repair tumours increases with age due to the hypermethylation of hMLH1 promoter. The study aimed to determine the prognostic value of deficient DNA mismatch repair phenotype in elderly patients. Design: Mismatch repair phenotype was retrospectively determined by molecular analysis in consecutive resected colorectal adenocarcinoma specimens from patients over 75 years of age from 4 Oncology centres. Results: 231 patients (median age: 81, range: 75-100) were enrolled from 2005 to 2008. Mean prevalence of deficient DNA mismatch repair phenotype was 22.5%, and 36% for patients over 85 years. Deficient DNA mismatch repair status was significantly associated with older age, female sex, proximal colon primary and high grade tumour. For stage II tumours no deficient DNA mismatch repair tomours had a recurrence at end of follow-up compared to 17% for tumours with proficient phenotype. The proficient phenotype status was significantly associated with worse age-adjusted overall survival [HR 2.60; 95% CI 1.05-6.44; p = 0.039]. For stage III tumours a trend for less recurrence was observed for deficient DNA mismatch repair phenotype (16%) compared to proficient phenotype (36%). Conclusion: deficient DNA mismatch repair phenotype is a prognostic factor in stage II colorectal tumour in elderly patients. Our results suggest that mismatch repair phenotype should be taken in consideration for adjuvant chemotherapy decision in elderly patients. (C) 2012 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier 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