Abstract
Background:
Conflicting results about the association between expression level of excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) and clinical outcome in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) receiving chemotherapy have been reported. Thus, we searched the available articles and performed the meta-analysis to elucidate the prognostic role of ERCC1 expression in patients with CRC.
Methods:
A thorough literature search using PubMed (Medline), Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science databases, and Chinese Science Citation Database was conducted to obtain the relevant studies. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate the results.
Results:
A total of 11 studies were finally enrolled in this meta-analysis. Compared with patients with lower ERCC1 expression, patients with higher ERCC1 expression tended to have unfavorable overall survival (OS) (HR = 2.325, 95% CI: 1.720–3.143, P < 0.001), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 1.917, 95% CI: 1.366–2.691, P < 0.001) and poor response to chemotherapy (OR = 0.491, 95% CI: 0.243–0.990, P = 0.047). Subgroup analyses by treatment setting, ethnicity, HR extraction, detection methods, survival analysis, and study design demonstrated that our results were robust.
Conclusions:
ERCC1 expression may be taken as an effective prognostic factor predicting the response to chemotherapy, OS, and PFS. Further studies with better study design and longer follow-up are warranted in order to gain a deeper understanding of ERCC1's prognostic value.
Keywords: Colorectal Cancer, Excision Repair Cross-complementation Group 1, Prognosis
INTRODUCTION
Colorectal cancer (CRC) ranks as the third most common cancer and the third most killing cancer worldwide.[1] It is estimated that around 608,000 deaths from CRC worldwide, accounting for 8% of global cancer-related mortalities.[2] In the past decades, the dramatic development of surgical technology, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and molecular targeted therapy, along with the widespread notion of multidisciplinary team, have momentously upgraded the clinical management and ameliorated the patients’ prognosis. Surgical resection remains to be the potentially curative option for CRC, but postoperative tumor relapse and distal metastases greatly undermine the long-term survival outcome. What is more, the majority of patients with CRC are not eligible for surgical operation at their initial diagnosis due to the asymptomatic nature of the disease. Currently, the treatment toward patients with CRC largely depends on the anatomical index-based tumor node metastasis (TNM) stage. Nevertheless, even at the same TNM stage, patients may exhibit observable variation in clinical outcome and response rate (RR) to treatment partially due to the marginal factors evading from the ongoing staging system.[3] Therefore, it is urgent to figure out the molecular markers those help us to stratify the patients according to the clinical prognosis as well as sensitivity to chemotherapy in order to adjust the management strategy toward them.
Excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) is widely recognized as a powerful component of nucleotide excision repair (NER) pathway, which not only involves the repair of interstrand cross-links in the DNA but also involves the recognition and remove of cytotoxic agents like platinum.[4] There are conflicting opinions toward the impaction of elevated ERCC1 expression on tumor progression. The tumor suppression effect of platinum agents as oxaliplatin mainly hinges on the platinum-DNA adducts secondary to their binding to cellular DNA, which can trigger cell destruction. Repair of DNA damage and removal of the DNA adducts by ERCC1 transmitted NER pathway are recognized as one of the mechanisms explaining cellular resistance to platinum agents;[5] meanwhile, some authors believed that the increased removal of bulky DNA adducts, which can also be produced by the other detrimental carcinogenic factors, are beneficial for the genome stability and cancer prevention.[6] The relationships between ERCC1 expression and clinical outcome have been explored in various kinds of malignant cancers including gastric cancer,[7] ovarian cancer,[8] and lung cancer.[9] For patients with CRC, the definite prognostic value of ERCC1 expression has not been established yet. Some authors suggested that increased expression of ERCC1 predicted inferior RRs to chemotherapy and survival outcome;[10] while some authors did not conclude any significant association between ERCC1 expression level and clinical prognosis.[11] In this setting, we felt it is essential to perform a systematic meta-analysis involving the relevant available articles to unveil the prognostic value of ERCC1 in patients with CRC.
METHODS
Literature research
A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed (Medline), Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science databases, and Chinese Science Citation Database for all years up to September 2015. Terms used in our search included: “ERCC1” (e.g., “ERCC-1,” “excision repair cross complementing group 1”, “excision repair cross complementing group-1”), “prognosis” (e.g., “outcome,” “survival,” “mortality,” “recurrence”), and “CRC” (e.g., “colorectal cancer,” “colon cancer,” “rectal cancer”). The literature should be written in English or Chinese. In addition, the reference lists were carefully screened to identify as more related articles as possible.
Study inclusion/exclusion criteria
All candidate articles were scrutinized by two independent reviewers (Li MX and Bi XY) with the following criteria: (1) the diagnosis of CRC was made based on pathological examination; (2) ERCC1 expression was measured in the tumor samples; (3) correlation of ERCC1 expression level with survival outcomes as overall survival/progression free survival (OS/PFS) or response to chemotherapy was reported. The hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) with the respective 95% confidence interval (CI) were either directly reported or could be reconstructed by the other available data[12] or figures in the essay;[13] (4) the study population received chemotherapy as the main treatment, which was defined as that over 70% of the studied patients received chemotherapy; (5) for studies with overlapping study population and data sets, only the most informative one was included. Any divergences were addressed by discussion.
Exclusion criteria were defined as: (1) abstracts, letters, editorials, expert opinions, reviews, case reports, case series <5 cases, meta-analyses; (2) articles without sufficient published data for determining an estimate of HR (OR) and a CI; (3) literature without the cut-off value defining “elevated ERCC1;” (4) Not human-based research.
Data extraction
The extracted data included: (1) first author's name, year of publication, country (region) of the population studied, patients’ age, sample size, gender, treatment setting, follow-up period, and detection methods; (2) survival data including OS and PFS; (3) cut-off value defining “elevated ERCC1” and number of positive/high ERCC1 expression. OS was defined as the interval between the medical treatment and the death of patients or the last follow-up. PFS was calculated from the date of treatment until the detection of the recurrence tumor or death from any cause.
Quality assessment of primary studies
The quality of the retrieved studies was gauged by the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) [Supplementary Table 1]. NOS scores of ≥6 indicated high quality. Two reviewers (Li MX and Bi XY) independently carried out the assessment. The consensus was finally reached through discussion when discrepancy occurred.
Supplementary Table 1.
Quality assessment of eligible studies with Newcastle–Ottawa scale
| Author | Year | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | NOS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shirota et al. | 2001 | ★★* | ★★★* | ★★* | 7 |
| Uchida et al. | 2008 | ★★* | ★★† | ★★* | 6 |
| Gustavsson et al. | 2009 | ★★* | ★★* | ★★* | 6 |
| Kim et al. | 2009 | ★★★* | ★* | ★★* | 6 |
| Xu et al. | 2011 | ★★* | ★* | ★★* | 5 |
| Grimminger et al. | 2012 | ★★* | ★★* | ★★* | 6 |
| Li et al. | 2012 | ★★* | ★★* | ★★* | 6 |
| Basso et al. | 2013 | ★★† | ★★* | ★★* | 6 |
| Huang et al. | 2013 | ★★* | ★* | ★★* | 5 |
| Gu et al. | 2014 | ★★* | ★★* | ★★* | 6 |
| Zhang et al. | 2015 | ★★★* | ★★* | ★★* | 7 |
The table presented the final quality assessment score of the enrolled studies by the authors. *The score was consistent in the initially separate assessment by Li MX and Bi XY; †The score was produced by the joint discussion. NOS: Newcastle–Ottawa scale.
Statistical analysis
The HRs and 95% CIs were directly retrieved from the essays or were synthesized indirectly from available statistics and/or figure plots in the articles by methods reported by Parmar et al.[12] and Tierney et al.[13] If several estimates were reported for the same value, the most persuading one was favored (multivariate analysis was superior to univariate analysis. And the latter one outweighed unadjusted Kaplan–Meier analysis).
A test of the heterogeneity of the included trials was undertaken using the Cochrane's Q statistic. I2 > 50% referred to severe heterogeneity. The random-effects (DerSimonian–Laird method) models were adopted in the presence of sever interstudy heterogeneity (I2 > 50%); otherwise, the fixed-effect model was applied. All statistical tests were two-sided, and the significance level was set at 5%. The subgroup analyses stratified by treatment setting (adjuvant chemotherapy [ACT] vs. palliative chemotherapy trial [PCT]), ethnicity (Asians vs. Caucasians), sample size (≥100 vs. <100), HR extraction (only in the analysis of OS and PFS, direct vs. indirect extraction), detection methods (immunohistochemistry [IHC] vs. polymerase chain reaction [PCR]), survival analysis (univariate analysis vs. multivariate analysis), and study design (prospective vs. retrospective) were performed. Egger's bias test was carried out to evaluate the publication bias. All analyses were performed using STATA statistical software package version 12.0 (STATA Corp., College Station, Texas, USA).
RESULTS
Description of the included studies
A total of 87 articles were identified in our initial literature search. After further evaluation of the primary identified articles, 11 articles[10,11,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22] with sample sizes ranging from 50 to 895 patients were included in our final meta-analysis. The flowchart of literature selection is illustrated in Figure 1. For the study evaluating patients with gastrointestinal cancer by Uchida et al.,[14] 88 of the 91 (96.7%) enrolled patients were diagnosed as CRC, thus we finally admitted it into our further analysis. Nine of the included studies were English written articles, and 2 were published in Chinese. Tumor response to chemotherapy was evaluated by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria[23] in 2 studies, by WHO criteria in 1 study, and by the specific criteria by the authors themselves in 3 studies. Expression of ERCC1 was assessed by IHC in 6 studies and by PCR in 5 studies. Coincidently, expression of ERCC1 in all of the studies from the Caucasian region was examined by PCR; while expression of ERCC1 in all of the trials performed in Asian region were assessed by IHC. Nine of the 11 included studies earned a NOS score ≥6. The basic information of the included studies was summarized in Table 1.
Figure 1.
The flowchart describing the selection of the literature.
Table 1.
Main characteristics of all the studies included in the meta-analysis
| Studies | Year | Study region | n (male/female) | Age (years) | Study design | Follow-up (months) | TNM | Treatment | Detection method | Cut-off (%) | Number of elevated (n (%)) | Survival outcome | HR extraction | Response criteria | NOS score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shirota et al. | 2001 | USA | 36/14 | NR | Prospective | 10.5 (1.8–21.2)* | IV | PCT | PCR | 4.9×10−3 | 10 (20) | OS | R (U) | – | 7 | |
| Uchida et al. | 2008 | USA | 61/30 | 56 (26–74)* | Prospective | NR | Advanced | PCT | PCR | 75th | 46 (74.2) | PFS, RR | R (U) | NR | 6 | |
| Gustavsson et al. | 2009 | Sweden | 68/76 | Responders: 66 (37–84)* Progressive: 65 (33–82)* | Retrospective | NR | IV | PCT | PCR | 25th | 132 (56.8) | PFS, RR | R (U) | WHO | 6 | |
| Kim et al. | 2009 | Korea | 49/21 | 54 (24–78)* | Prospective | NR | IV | PCT | IHC | 4 | 39 (55.7) | OS, RR | R (M) | Specific | 6 | |
| Xu et al. | 2011 | the mainland of China | 41/31 | 46 (25–76)* | Retrospective | 48 | 12/19/19/22 | ACT | Xu et al. | IHC | 2 | 31 (43.06) | OS | E (U) | – | 5 |
| Grimminger et al. | 2012 | USA | 90/32 | 63 (28–83)* | Prospective | NR | IV | PCT | PCR | 1.73 | 6 (20.69) | OS | R (U) | – | 6 | |
| Li et al. | 2012 | the mainland of China | 144/111 | Mayo clinic: 56.1 (27–78)* mFOLFOX6/XELOX: 53.9 (26–83)* | Retrospective | Combined subgroup: 68 Single drug subgroup: 86 | III | ACT | IHC | 2 | 140 (55.78) | OS, PFS | R (M) | – | 6 | |
| Basso et al. | 2013 | Italy | 62/38 | Median: 64 | Retrospective | NR | IV | ACT | PCR | 6.21×10−3 | 30 (50) | PFS, RR | R (U) | RECIST | 6 | |
| Huang et al. | 2013 | Taiwan, China | 112/68 | <65 years: n = 93 ≥65 years: n = 87 | Prospective | 24.99 ± 1.04 | III | ACT | IHC | 2 | 20 (11.1) | OS, PFS, RR | E (U) | Specific | 5 | |
| Gu and Mao | 2014 | the mainland of China | 54/43 | 57 (32–78)* | Retrospective | NR | NR | ACT | IHC | 2 | 40 (41.24) | OS, RR | R (M) | RECIST | 6 | |
| Zhang et al. | 2015 | the mainland of China | 524/371 | ≤60: 481 >60: 414 | Retrospective | 37.5 (range 0–65) | III | ACT | IHC | 2 | 406 (45.4) | OS, PFS | R (M) | – | 7 |
*Median (range). OS: Overall survival; PFS: Progression-free survival; RR: Response rate; HR: Hazard ratio; obtained by reporting in text (R) or estimating (E); M: The HR come from multivariate analysis; E: Extent; I: Intensity; NR: Not reported; NOS: Newcastle–Ottawa scale; TNM: Tumor node metastasis; ACT: Adjuvant chemotherapy; PCT: Palliative chemotherapy; PCR: Polymerase chain reaction; IHC: Immunohistochemistry; RECIST: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors; WHO: World Health Organization.
Excision repair cross-complementation group 1 and overall survival
A total of 8 essays presented the data about the relationship between ERCC1 expression and OS. Though with heterogeneity, the pooled analysis demonstrated that patients with increased ERCC1 expression predisposed to have shorter OS (HR = 2.325, 95% CI: 1.720–3.143, P < 0.001) [Figure 2a]. Except for the subgroup analysis of treatment setting as PCT, the majority of the subgroup analysis agreed with the overall results [Table 2].
Figure 2.
Forest plots of the hazard ratio for the association between excision repair cross-complementation group 1 expression and overall survival (a) and progression-free survival (b) in patients with colorectal cancer with random effects model. Horizontal lines correspond to the study-specific hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval, respectively. The size of the squares reflects the study-specific weight. The diamond represents the results for the pooled hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval.
Table 2.
Meta-analysis results for OS and PFS
| Analysis | OS | PFS | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | HR (95% CI) | P | I2 (%) | Ph | n | HR (95% CI) | P | I2 (%) | Ph | |
| Total | 8 | 2.325 (1.720–3.143) | <0.001 | 60.5 | 0.013 | 6 | 1.917 (1.366–2.691) | <0.001 | 72.8 | 0.003 |
| Subgroup 1: ACT | 5 | 2.261 (1.667–3.066) | <0.001 | 61.8 | 0.033 | 4 | 2.113 (1.329–3.358) | 0.002 | 77.3 | 0.004 |
| PCT | 3 | 2.740 (0.957–7.846) | 0.060 | 72.5 | 0.026 | 2 | 1.569 (1.129–2.181) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.693 |
| Subgroup 2: Caucasian | 2 | 4.724 (2.226–10.026) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.567 | 3 | 1.431 (1.077–1.902) | 0.013 | 0 | 0.513 |
| Asian | 6 | 2.106 (1.545–2.870) | <0.001 | 63.8 | 0.017 | 3 | 2.503 (1.686–3.716) | <0.001 | 62.6 | 0.069 |
| Subgroup 3: Sample size ≥100 | 4 | 2.585 (1.796–3.721) | <0.001 | 60.2 | 0.057 | 4 | 2.320 (1.663–3.237) | <0.001 | 56.2 | 0.077 |
| Sample size <100 | 4 | 2.054 (1.178–3.580) | 0.011 | 60.8 | 0.054 | 2 | 1.350 (0.975–1.869) | 0.070 | 0 | 0.370 |
| Subgroup 4: PCR | 2 | 4.724 (2.226–10.026) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.567 | 3 | 1.431 (1.077–1.902) | 0.013 | 0 | 0.513 |
| IHC | 6 | 2.106 (1.545–2.870) | <0.001 | 63.8 | 0.017 | 3 | 2.503 (1.686–3.716) | <0.001 | 62.6 | 0.069 |
| Subgroup 5: direct | 6 | 2.146 (1.549–2.973) | <0.001 | 64.9 | 0.014 | 4 | 1.831 (1.239–2.705) | 0.002 | 74.0 | 0.009 |
| Indirect | 2 | 3.700 (1.451–9.436) | 0.006 | 50.7 | 0.154 | 2 | 2.604 (0.755–8.984) | 0.130 | 81.4 | 0.020 |
| Subgroup 6: Univariate analysis | 4 | 3.833 (2.385–6.159) | <0.001 | 0 | 0.416 | 4 | 1.722 (1.078–2.750) | 0.023 | 60.2 | 0.057 |
| Multivariate analysis | 4 | 1.895 (1.361–2.640) | <0.001 | 70.3 | 0.018 | 2 | 2.269 (1.560–3.298) | <0.001 | 67.9 | 0.078 |
| Subgroup 7: Prospective | 4 | 2.630 (1.297–5.332) | 0.007 | 72.8 | 0.012 | 3 | 2.008 (1.222–3.300) | 0.006 | 62.8 | 0.068 |
| Retrospective | 4 | 2.458 (2.066–2.924) | <0.001 | 42.3 | 0.158 | 3 | 1.796 (1.026–3.143) | 0.040 | 79.7 | 0.007 |
OS: Overall survival; PFS: Progression-free survival; ACT: Adjuvant chemotherapy; PCT: Palliative chemotherapy; Ph: P value of Q test for heterogeneity test; HR: Hazard ratio; CI: Confidence interval; PCR: Polymerase chain reaction; IHC: Immunohistochemistry; n: Number.
Excision repair cross-complementation group 1 and progression free survival
The relationship between ERCC1 expression and PFS was explored in 6 studies. The combined HR of 1.917 revealed a significant association between elevated ERCC1 expression and inferior PFS (HR = 1.917, 95% CI: 1.366–2.691, P < 0.001) [Figure 2b]. Except for the subgroup analysis of studies with a sample size <100 and studies whose HR was indirectly retrieved, the majority of the subgroup analysis agreed with the overall results [Table 2].
Excision repair cross-complementation group 1 and response rate to chemotherapy
Information about the association between ERCC1 expression and RR to chemotherapy was described in 6 trials. Patients with elevated ERCC1 expression were inclined to response poorer to the chemotherapy compared with those with lower expression of ERCC1 (OR = 0.491, 95% CI: 0.243–0.990, P = 0.047) [Table 3 and Figure 3].
Table 3.
Meta-analysis results for RR
| Analysis | RR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | OR (95% CI) | P | I2 (%) | Ph | |
| Total | 6 | 0.491 (0.243–0.990) | 0.047 | 68.0 | 0.008 |
| Subgroup 1: ACT | 3 | 0.470 (0.139–1.594) | 0.226 | 84.9 | 0.001 |
| PCT | 3 | 0.535 (0.271–1.058) | 0.072 | 0 | 0.382 |
| Subgroup 2: Caucasian | 3 | 0.616 (0.208–1.821) | 0.381 | 67.0 | 0.048 |
| Asian | 3 | 0.391 (0.172–0.888) | 0.025 | 52.9 | 0.120 |
| Subgroup 3: Sample size ≥100 | 2 | 0.235 (0.094–0.588) | 0.002 | 0.0 | 0.580 |
| Sample size <100 | 4 | 0.640 (0.296–1.383) | 0.256 | 68.9 | 0.022 |
| Subgroup 4: PCR | 3 | 0.616 (0.208–1.821) | 0.381 | 67.0 | 0.048 |
| IHC | 3 | 0.391 (0.172–0.888) | 0.025 | 52.9 | 0.120 |
| Subgroup 5: Prospective | 3 | 0.399 (0.160–0.995) | 0.049 | 51.1 | 0.129 |
| Retrospective | 3 | 0.581 (0.194–1.741) | 0.332 | 74.4 | 0.012 |
RR: Response rate; n: Number; OR: Odds ratio; CI: Confidence interval; Ph: P value of Q test for heterogeneity test; ACT: Adjuvant chemotherapy; PCT: Palliative chemotherapy; IHC: Immunohistochemistry.
Figure 3.
Forest plots of the hazard ratio for the association between excision repair cross-complementation group 1 expression and response rate to chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer with random effects model. Horizontal lines correspond to the study-specific hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval, respectively. The size of the squares reflects the study-specific weight. The diamond represents the results for the pooled hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval.
Subgroup analysis stratified by study region suggested that ERCC1 expression was associated with the RR to chemotherapy in Asian population (OR = 0.391, 95% CI: 0.172–0.888, P = 0.025); in the subgroup divided by the detection method, a significant relationship between elevated ERCC1 expression and resistance to chemotherapy was obtained in the IHC subgroup (OR = 0.391, 95% CI: 0.172–0.888, P = 0.025); when the studies were stratified by the sample size, we found that the significant relationship between ERCC1 overexpression in the subgroup with sample size larger than 100 (OR = 0.235, 95% CI: 0.094–0.588, P = 0.002); significant association between elevated ERCC1 expression and improved RR was also detected in the subgroup of prospective designed studies (OR = 0.399, 95% CI: 0.160–0.995, P = 0.049) [Table 3].
Sensitivity analysis
In the sensitivity analysis, the influence of each study on the pooled HR/OR was examined by repeating the meta-analysis while omitting one of the enrolled studies at a time. The respective HRs/ORs was not materially changed (data not shown). The results showed that our results were robust.
Publication bias
In the present meta-analysis, Egger's test was used to assess the publication bias of literature. Egger's tests indicated no significant publication bias among studies with overall analysis of OS (P = 0.733), PFS (P = 0.365) and RR (P = 0.063).
DISCUSSION
The pooled analysis involving 11 studies and 2076 patients revealed that increased expression of ERCC1 is significantly correlated with shorter OS and PFS. Moreover, an elevated level of ERCC1 expression significantly predicted patients’ resistance to chemotherapy. In the subsequent subgroup analysis, the majority of the results went along with the overall results.
The neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy mainly involving oxaliplatin and (or) 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) have been proved to downstage the tumor and to reduce the tumor recurrence effectively.[24] In our subgroup analysis on the basis of treatment setting, elevated expression of ERCC1 was significantly related with poor survival outcome no matter in the ACT subgroup and in the PCT subgroup. Nevertheless, resistance to chemotherapy seriously hinders the further improvement of its therapeutic effects. It was estimated that at least half of the patients had poor responses to the FOLFOX regiments as the first-line treatment.[25] Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene (KRAS) and V-rafmurine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF) status, which stratify the patients according to their sensitivity to the anti-EGFR agent cetuximab, have been incorporated into the clinical guideline as a part of the indication for molecular targeted therapy.[26] But no molecular marker predicting the therapeutic efficacy of oxaliplatin and (or) 5-FU-based chemotherapy has been widely accepted yet.[27] ERCC1, the rate-limiting enzyme in the NER pathway, is an attractive target to modulate the cellular sensitivity to platinum-based chemotherapy. Several preclinical studies discovered that cancer cells with an elevated ERCC1 expression often possessed a high DNA-repair capability on exposure to platinum drugs. It was reported that the oxaliplatin resistance induced by ERCC1 was abrogated by siRNA-mediated gene silencing in human CRC cells.[28] The present meta-analysis, chiefly focused on patients underwent chemotherapy, revealed that patients with increased expression of ERCC1 predisposed to be resistant to chemotherapy and a short PFS, and OS was very likely the consequence. It was consistent with the theoretical inference and the analogous meta-analyses assessing the prognostic value of ERCC1 in gastric cancer,[29] small cell lung cancer,[30] and nonsmall cell lung cancer.[31] Thus, we inferred that ERCC1 might be employed as an indicator of therapy effects and the survival outcome.
Observable interstudy heterogeneity was marked in our meta-analysis. As meta-regression analysis is best suitable for meta-analysis involving more than 10 studies, we can only try to figure out the source of heterogeneity through the subgroup analysis. In the meta-analysis concerning OS, we found that survival analysis (univariate vs. multivariate analysis), study region, and detecting method might account for the heterogeneity to some extent. Coincidently, expression of ERCC in studies conducted in the Caucasian region was determined by PCR; while studies from the Asian region all took IHC as the assessing tool. Limited by the relevant information, the relationship between study region and detection method could not be conducted. Thus, we could not determine whether the discrepancy in I2 value was the result of the underlying ethnicity background or the result of the detection methods of studies. Moreover, confounding factors such as the baseline differences among the study population, the laboratory protocol, and the chemotherapy regiment were not taken into our analysis due to the limited information or the limited number of studies sharing the same features. We could only infer that survival analysis, study region, and detecting method may explain the source of heterogeneity to some extent. Further studies were warranted to investigate the impaction of ethnicity background on ERCC1 expression and the clinical prognosis. In addition, for the pooled estimate focusing on PFS, we came to find that the treatment setting, study region, and detecting method might partially be responsible for the heterogeneity. The study region and detecting method may in part explain the source of interstudy heterogeneity in the meta-analysis evaluating the relationship between ERCC1 expression and response to chemotherapy.
Response to treatment is usually assessed by imaging manifestation and pathological examination. The pathological examination has long been regarded as the golden standard, but it is only available in limited cases. There are several imaging appraising criteria including WHO criteria, European Association for the Study of the Liver guidelines criteria,[32] and modified RECIST criteria.[23] Until now, none of the above guidelines has been acknowledged as the best standard for gauging the treatment response through imaging modalities. In the meta-analysis involving 6 cohorts gauging the predictive value of ERCC1 expression in RR to chemotherapy, 2 adopted the RECIST criteria and 1 was measured by the WHO criteria; meanwhile, the rest 3 articles took the specific criteria defined by them or even did not report the detailed criteria. In the present meta-analysis, we could not perform the subgroup analysis based on the criteria evaluating the response to treatment due to a limited number of studies sharing the same criteria.
In our study, ERCC1 expression was detected in 5 studies at the transcriptional level by PCR and at the protein level by IHC in another 5 trials. Differences in the Taq polymerase, the primer, and the concentration of dNTP are all recognized as sources of bias in the outcomes measured by PCR.[33] No standard procedure of IHC is erected now. Variation in the sample storage, fixation time, the source of antibody, and the dilution of the antibody may greatly influence the results.[34] Moreover, the scoring of the expression was subjectively gauged by the technicians in each study. In addition, the cut-off value defining the elevated expression of ERCC1 in the enrolled studies varied from institution to institution, which might be a source of heterogeneity. In some studies using IHC as the detection method, score as 1.73, 2, or 4 was taken as the cut-off value. And in studies using PCR as the detection method, cut-off value was set as 25%, 75%, 4.9 × 10−3, or 4.9 × 10−3. We could not perform the subgroup analyses accordingly, as few studies shared the same cut-off value. And also, the comparability of PCR and IHC in detecting the expression of ERCC1 is a concern in the meta-analysis. Recent studies discovered several isoforms of ERCC1 (201, 202, 203, and 204).[35] Of them, ERCC1-202 isoform was supposed as the only isoform implying the DNA-repair capability and might function as the predictor of response to platinum-based chemotherapy, which has been proved in patients with NSCLC.[35] However, the commonly used detection approaches of clinical samples, including IHC and PCR, cannot correctly discriminate the isoforms. It may lead to inaccurate interpretation of ERCC1 and NER pathway activity.
Despite our efforts to conduct a systematic analysis, admittedly, there were some other limitations in our meta-analysis. First, the study design may be a concern, as 5 of the enrolled studies were prospectively performed and 6 of them were retrospectively performed. Retrospective studies had intrinsic defects such as selection bias and recalling bias. The significant relationships between elevated ERCC1 expression and survival outcome were not altered by the respective subgroup analysis, which further strengthened our results. Second, some HRs were indirectly produced by the relevant data[12] or retrieved from the Kaplan–Meier curves,[13] which were less reliable than the directly reported ones. It should be noted that the P values for the Kaplan–Meier curves in the study by Huang et al.[19] were presented as P < 0.001, we could only adopt the P value as 0.001, i.e., the upper limit of the actual P value, in our HR (95% CI) estimating process. We could infer that the positive results of our meta-analysis were robust as the pooled HRs (95% CIs) evaluating ERCC1 overexpression and survival outcome were somehow underestimated. What is more, HRs were synthesized by different survival analyses in the pooled articles. Subgroup analysis stratified by the survival analysis and HR extraction method all agreed with the overall results, which suggested that our results were steadfast. Third, the dosage and detailed regiment were not uniform among the included institutions. Moreover, chemotherapy was performed as the first-line treatment in some trails while in some other studies it was conducted as the second line treatment. They all might contribute to the heterogeneity in the meta-analysis. Fourth, publication bias remains to be the main concern for all meta-analysis. Articles with positive results were much more favored by the journal's editorial board than the negative ones.[36] Thus, the present results may be overvalued to some extent.[36] Moreover, due to limited information regarding the association between ERCC1 and toxicity were provided, we could not perform the respective meta-analysis. In addition, though we tried our best to identify as more relevant articles as possible, we only searched the above-listed databases and only referred to essays written in English and Chinese. The included number of studies may be somehow insufficient.
In conclusion, elevated ERCC1 expression is a useful prognostic biomarker which is significantly associated with unfavorable survival outcomes (OS and PFS) in patients with CRCs. And increased expression of ERCC1 can also function as a molecular marker predicting patients’ resistance to chemotherapy. Future prospective studies with large sample sizes and better study designs are required to confirm our findings.
Supplementary information is linked to the online version of the paper on the Chinese Medical Journal website.
Financial support and sponsorship
This work was supported by a grant of National High-Tech Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) (No. 2015AA020408).
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Edited by: Yuan-Yuan Ji
REFERENCES
- 1.Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:9–29. doi: 10.3322/caac.21208. doi: 10.3322/caac.21208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90. doi: 10.3322/caac.20107. doi: 10.3322/caac.20107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Hari DM, Leung AM, Lee JH, Sim MS, Vuong B, Chiu CG, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual 7th edition criteria for colon cancer: Do the complex modifications improve prognostic assessment? J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:181–90. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.04.018. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2013.04.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Metzger R, Bollschweiler E, Hölscher AH, Warnecke-Eberz U. ERCC1:Impact in multimodality treatment of upper gastrointestinal cancer. Future Oncol. 2010;6:1735–49. doi: 10.2217/fon.10.140. doi: 10.2217/fon.10.140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Usanova S, Piée-Staffa A, Sied U, Thomale J, Schneider A, Kaina B, et al. Cisplatin sensitivity of testis tumour cells is due to deficiency in interstrand-crosslink repair and low ERCC1-XPF expression. Mol Cancer. 2010;9:248. doi: 10.1186/1476-4598-9-248. doi: 10.1186/1476-4598-9-248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Vineis P, Talaska G, Malaveille C, Bartsch H, Martone T, Sithisarankul P, et al. DNA adducts in urothelial cells: Relationship with biomarkers of exposure to arylamines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from tobacco smoke. Int J Cancer. 1996;65:314–6. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19960126)65:3<314::AID-IJC6>3.0.CO;2-2. doi: 10.1002/(SICI).1097-0215(19960126) 65:3<314:AID-IJC6>3.0.CO;2-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Yao A, Wang Y, Peng X, Ye R, Wang Q, Qi Y, et al. Predictive value of excision repair cross-complementation group 1 expression for platinum-based chemotherapy and survival in gastric cancer: A meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2014;140:2107–17. doi: 10.1007/s00432-014-1758-4. doi: 10.1007/s00432-014-1758-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Steffensen KD, Smoter M, Waldstrøm M, Grala B, Bodnar L, Stec R, et al. Resistance to first line platinum paclitaxel chemotherapy in serous epithelial ovarian cancer: The prediction value of ERCC1 and Tau expression. Int J Oncol. 2014;44:1736–44. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2014.2311. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2014.2311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Wei HB, Hu J, Shang LH, Zhang YY, Lu FF, Wei M, et al. A meta-analytic review of ERCC1/MDR1 polymorphism and chemosensitivity to platinum in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Chin Med J. 2012;125:2902–7. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.2012.16.019. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Shirota Y, Stoehlmacher J, Brabender J, Xiong YP, Uetake H, Danenberg KD, et al. ERCC1 and thymidylate synthase mRNA levels predict survival for colorectal cancer patients receiving combination oxaliplatin and fluorouracil chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:4298–304. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.23.4298. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kim SH, Kwon HC, Oh SY, Lee DM, Lee S, Lee JH, et al. Prognostic value of ERCC1, thymidylate synthase, and glutathione S-transferase pi for 5-FU/oxaliplatin chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer. Am J Clin Oncol. 2009;32:38–43. doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e31817be58e. doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e31817be58e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med. 1998;17:2815–34. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2815::aid-sim110>3.0.co;2-8. doi: 10.1002/(SICI).1097-0258 (19981230) 17:24<.2815:AID-SIM110>3.0.CO;2-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8:16. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-8-16. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-8-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Uchida K, Danenberg PV, Danenberg KD, Grem JL. Thymidylate synthase, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, ERCC1, and thymidine phosphorylase gene expression in primary and metastatic gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma tissue in patients treated on a phase I trial of oxaliplatin and capecitabine. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:386. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-8-386. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-8-386. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Xu GQ, Li Y, Ye SL, Liu Y. ERCC1 and BRCA1 expressions in the tissues of colorectal cancer and its relationship with clinical significance of platinum-based chemotherapy. Fudan Univ J Med Sci. 2011;38:315–8. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-8467.2011.04.007. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Grimminger PP, Shi M, Barrett C, Lebwohl D, Danenberg KD, Brabender J, et al. TS and ERCC-1 mRNA expressions and clinical outcome in patients with metastatic colon cancer in CONFIRM-1 and -2 clinical trials. Pharmacogenomics J. 2012;12:404–11. doi: 10.1038/tpj.2011.29. doi: 10.1038/tpj.2011.29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Li P, Fang YJ, Li F, Ou QJ, Chen G, Ma G. ERCC1, defective mismatch repair status as predictive biomarkers of survival for stage III colon cancer patients receiving oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2013;108:1238–44. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.83. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Basso M, Strippoli A, Orlandi A, Martini M, Calegari MA, Schinzari G, et al. KRAS mutational status affects oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy independently from basal mRNA ERCC-1 expression in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Br J Cancer. 2013;108:115–20. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.526. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.526. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Huang MY, Tsai HL, Lin CH, Huang CW, Ma CJ, Huang CM, et al. Predictive value of ERCC1, ERCC2, and XRCC1 overexpression for stage III colorectal cancer patients receiving FOLFOX-4 adjuvant chemotherapy. J Surg Oncol. 2013;108:457–64. doi: 10.1002/jso.23422. doi: 10.1002/jso.23422. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Gu SD, Mao GX. Correlation of ERCCl, BRCAl expression and chemotherapeutic effect and prognosis of oxaliplatin regimens in advanced colon cancer tissues. Cancer Res Prev Treat. 2014;41:1111–5. doi: 10.3971/j.issn.1000-8578.2014.10.012. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Gustavsson B, Kaiser C, Carlsson G, Wettergren Y, Odin E, Lindskog EB, et al. Molecular determinants of efficacy for 5-FU-based treatments in advanced colorectal cancer: MRNA expression for 18 chemotherapy-related genes. Int J Cancer. 2009;124:1220–6. doi: 10.1002/ijc.23852. doi: 10.1002/ijc.23852. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Zhang Y, Ma J, Zhang S, Deng G, Wu X, He J, et al. A prognostic analysis of 895 cases of stage III colon cancer in different colon subsites. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2015;30:1173–83. doi: 10.1007/s00384-015-2273-z. doi: 10.1007/s00384-015-2273-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2010;30:52–60. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1247132. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1247132. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Nordlinger B, Sorbye H, Glimelius B, Poston GJ, Schlag PM, Rougier P, et al. Perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (EORTC Intergroup trial 40983):A randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;371:1007–16. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60455-9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60455-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Cassidy J, Clarke S, Díaz-Rubio E, Scheithauer W, Figer A, Wong R, et al. Randomized phase III study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2006–12. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.9898. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.9898. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Maughan TS, Adams RA, Smith CG, Meade AM, Seymour MT, Wilson RH, et al. Addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based first-line combination chemotherapy for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: Results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial. Lancet. 2011;377:2103–14. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60613-2. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60613-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Brenner H, Kloor M, Pox CP. Colorectal cancer. Lancet. 2014;383:1490–502. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61649-9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61649-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Chang IY, Kim MH, Kim HB, Lee DY, Kim SH, Kim HY, et al. Small interfering RNA-induced suppression of ERCC1 enhances sensitivity of human cancer cells to cisplatin. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2005;327:225–33. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.12.008. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2004.12.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Wei KK, Jiang L, Wei YY, Wang YF, Qian XK, Dai Q, et al. The prognostic value of ERCC1 expression in gastric cancer patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy: A meta-analysis. Tumour Biol. 2014;35:8721–31. doi: 10.1007/s13277-014-2128-1. doi: 10.1007/s13277-014-2128-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Yang Y, Luo X, Yang N, Feng R, Xian L. The prognostic value of excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) receiving platinum-based chemotherapy: Evidence from meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e111651. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111651. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111651. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Roth JA, Carlson JJ. Prognostic role of ERCC1 in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Lung Cancer. 2011;12:393–401. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2011.04.005. doi: 10.1016/j.cllc.2011.04.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–16. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.3.205. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.3.205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Thellin O, ElMoualij B, Heinen E, Zorzi W. A decade of improvements in quantification of gene expression and internal standard selection. Biotechnol Adv. 2009;27:323–33. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2009.01.010. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2009.01.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Taylor CR, Levenson RM. Quantification of immunohistochemistry –Issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment II. Histopathology. 2006;49:411–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02513.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02513.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Friboulet L, Postel-Vinay S, Sourisseau T, Adam J, Stoclin A, Ponsonnailles F, et al. ERCC1 function in nuclear excision and interstrand crosslink repair pathways is mediated exclusively by the ERCC1-202 isoform. Cell Cycle. 2013;12:3298–306. doi: 10.4161/cc.26309. doi: 10.4161/cc.26309. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]