Ribonucleotide reductase subunits M1 and M2 mRNA expression levels and clinical outcome of lung adenocarcinoma patients treated with docetaxel/gemcitabine
2008

RRM1 and RRM2 Expression in Lung Adenocarcinomas

Sample size: 53 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Souglakos J, Boukovinas I, Taron M, Mendez P, Mavroudis D, Tripaki M, Hatzidaki D, Koutsopoulos A, Stathopoulos E, Georgoulias V, Rosell R

Primary Institution: Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology, School of Medicine, University of Crete, Crete, Greece

Hypothesis

The study investigates the correlation between RRM1 and RRM2 mRNA expression levels and clinical outcomes in lung adenocarcinoma patients treated with docetaxel/gemcitabine.

Conclusion

Low levels of RRM2 mRNA are associated with a higher response rate to treatment in lung adenocarcinoma patients.

Supporting Evidence

  • Low RRM2 mRNA expression was associated with a significantly higher response rate compared to high RRM2 expression.
  • Patients with low RRM1 expression had a longer time to progression and overall survival than those with high RRM1 expression.
  • Patients with low levels of both RRM1 and RRM2 had a significantly higher response rate, time to progression, and overall survival.

Takeaway

This study found that patients with lower levels of certain genes in their tumors responded better to a specific cancer treatment.

Methodology

The study assessed RRM1 and RRM2 mRNA expression in tumor samples from lung adenocarcinoma patients using quantitative real-time PCR.

Potential Biases

Potential bias due to the small number of patients evaluated and the specific focus on a single cancer type.

Limitations

The small sample size and the focus on lung adenocarcinomas limit the generalizability of the findings.

Participant Demographics

{"gender_distribution":{"male":45,"female":8},"age":{"median":60,"range":"39-75"},"performance_status":{"0":35,"1":16,"2":2},"stage_distribution":{"IIIB":12,"IV":41}}

Statistical Information

P-Value

{"RRM2_response":"p=0.002","RRM1_time_to_progression":"p=0.044","RRM1_overall_survival":"p=0.02","combined_expression":{"response_rate":"p=0.049","time_to_progression":"p=0.003","overall_survival":"p=0.031"}}

Confidence Interval

{"overall_response_rate":"95% confidence interval: 19.6–46.9%","RRM1_time_to_progression":"95% CI: 3.1–5.8","RRM1_overall_survival":"95% CI: 4.2–15.4","RRM2_time_to_progression":"95% CI: 1.6–9.8","RRM2_overall_survival":"95% CI: 4.3–19.7"}

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1038/sj.bjc.6604344

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication