1.
本文中所涉及的一些关于RRM1在晚期NSCLC中的研究
Some studies about the role of RRM1 in the advanced NSCLC
| Other markers studied |
n | Treatment | Findings | |
| NSCLC: non-small cell lung cancer; CR: complete response; DCR: disease control rate; PFS: progression-free survival; PR: partial response; SD: stable disease; P: platinum; Tax: taxol; Gem: gemcitabine; Doc: docetaxel. | ||||
| Protein level[19] | ERCC1, TUBB3 |
85 | A group (44): ERCC-RRM- (Gem+P), ERCC-RRM1+TUBB3- (Tax/Doc+P), ERCC-RRM1+TUBB3+ (pemetrexed+P), ERCC+RRM1-TUBB3- (Gem+Tax), ERCC+RRM1-TUBB3+ (Gem), ERCC+RRM1+TUBB3- (Tax+Doc), ERCC+RRM1+TUBB3+ (pemetrexed). B group(41): Gem+P |
The overall response rate, defined as CR plus PR, was 56.1% for group A, significantly higher than that in group B (31.8%; P=0.024). The PFS and the 1-yr survival rate was 5.2 mo and 65.9% for group A, significantly longer and higher than that of group B (4.1 mo, P=0.026; 40.9%, P=0.021). |
| mRNA expression[20] |
BRCA1 | 94 | RRM-BRCA- (Gem+P), RRM1-BRCA1+ (Gem+vinorelbine), RRM1+BRCA1- (Doc+P), RRM1+BRCA1+ (vinorelbine+P). |
The response rates in the Gem+P, Doc+P and vinorelbine+P groups were 42.9%, 36.7% and 27.9%, respectively (P=0.568). The PFS was 5.6, 5.0 mo, 4.8 mo (P=0.975), respectively, and the OS was 12.5 mo, 11.0 mo, 9.7 mo (P=0.808), respectively. |
| mRNA expression[21] |
ERCC1, BRCA1 |
34 | Gem+P | The response rate in the RRM1- group was significantly greater than in the RRM1+ group (52.9% vs 5.9%, P=0.007). |
| Protein level[22] | ERCC1, TUBB3 |
86 | The study group received chemotherapy (P, Gem, Tax and pemetrexed) under the guidance of molecular markers (ERCC1, RRM1 and TS). The control group received vinorelbine. | The PFS of the study group and the control group was 4.0 mo (95%CI: 3.1-4.9) and 3.0 mo (95%CI: 2.4-3.6) respectively. The difference being statistically significant (χ2=4.750, P=0.029). The differences of the objective response rate and DCR being not significant. |
| Protein level[24] | - | 299 | Platinum doublet chemotherapy | In patients receiving gemcitabine-based therapy, the DCR and PFS of RRM1- was significantly higher than RRM1+ (P=0.041 and P=0.01, respectively) |
| Protein level[25] | - | 40 | Platinum doublet chemotherapy | The OS of RRM1+ was significantly shorter than RRM- (5.1 mo vs 12.9 mo, P=0.022). DCR (PR+SD) of the RRM1+ was significantly lower than that of RRM1- (23% vs 56%, P=0.053). |