Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Application of Microsatellite Instability and Oncotype DX in Stage II Colon Cancer Adjuvant Chemotherapy

Current Colorectal Cancer Reports

Abstract

Adjuvant chemotherapy has improved the overall prognosis for patients with stage III colon cancer. However, the precise role of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage II colon cancer remains a matter of ongoing debate. While patients with high-risk stage II disease derive clinical benefit from adjuvant therapy, it remains unclear as to whether patients with average or low-risk stage II disease should receive further therapy following surgical resection. Significant efforts have focused on developing and validating molecular biomarkers to further define the subset of patients with stage II disease who would derive benefit from adjuvant therapy. Herein, we review the current status of biomarker research with respect to the specific roles of microsatellite instability and genotype analysis in patients with stage II colon cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Springer; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rougier P, Andre T, Panis Y, et al. Colon cancer. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2006;30:2S24–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mamounas E, Wieand S, Wolmark N, et al. Comparative efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with Dukes’B vs Dukes’ C colon cancer: results from four National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Adjuvant Studies (c-01, C-02, C-03, and C-040. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1349–55.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gill S, Loprinzi CL, Sargent DJ, et al. Pooled analysis of fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy for stage II and III colon cancer: who benefits and by how much? J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1797–806.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Figueredo A, Charette ML, Maroun J, et al. Adjuvant therapy for stage II colon cancer: a systematic review from the Cancer Care Ontario Program in evidence-based care’s gastrointestinal cancer disease site group. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3395–407.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. •• Gray R, Barnwell J, McConkey C, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation in patients with colorectal cancer: a randomized study. Lancet 2007;370:2020–9. This is an important study as it was the first randomized phase 3 clinical trial to document the clinical benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Benson 3rd AB, Schrag D, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3408–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Engstrom PF, Benson 3rd AB, Chen YJ, et al. Colon cancer clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2005;3:468–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. • Sargent D, Sobrero A, Grothey A, et al. Evidence for cure by adjuvant therapy in colon cancer: observations based on individual patient data from 20,898 patients on 18 randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:872–7. This article highlights the importance of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and stage III colon cancer based on the large ACCENT patient database.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fearon ER, Cho KR, Nigro JM, et al. Identification of a chromosome 18q gene that is altered in colorectal cancers. Science. 1990;247:49–56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Thiagalingam S, Lengauer C, Leach FS, et al. Evaluation of candidate tumor suppressor genes on chromosome 18 in colorectal cancers. Nat Genet. 1996;13:343–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mazelin L, Bernet A, Bonod-Bidaud C, et al. Netrin-1 controls colorectal tumorigenesis by regulating apoptosis. Nature. 2004;431:80–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jen J, Kim H, Piantadosi S, et al. Allelic loss of chromosome 18q and prognosis in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:213–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ogunbiyi OA, Goodfellow PJ, Herfarth K, et al. Confirmation that chromosome 18q allelic loss in colon cancer is a prognostic indicator. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:427–33.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Martinez-Lopez E, Abad A, Font A, et al. Allelic loss on chromosome 18q as a prognostic marker in stage II colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 1998;114:1180–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Popat S, Houlston RS. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between chromosome 18q genotype, DCC status and colorectal cancer prognosis. Eur J Cancer. 2005;41:2060–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Roth AD, Tejpar S, Yan P, et al. Stage-specific prognostic prognostic value of molecular markers in colon cancer: results of the translational study on the PETACC3-EORTC 40993-SAKK60-00 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(15 suppl):169s.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Grady WM, Markowitz SD. Genetic and epigenetic alterations in colon cancer. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2002;3:101–28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. • Boland CR, Thibodeau SN, Hamilton SR, et al. A National Cancer Institute Workshop on microsatellite instability for cancer detection and familial predisposition: development of international criteria for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 1998;58:5248–57. This article is important as it reviews the criteria for microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Samowitz WS, Curtin K, Ma KN, et al. Microsatellite instability in sporadic colon cancer is associated with an improved prognosis at the population level. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2001;10:917–23.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sinicrope FA, Rego RL, Halling KC, et al. Prognostic impact of microsatellite instability and DNA ploidy in human colon carcinoma patients. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:729–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Benatti P, Gafa R, Barana D, et al. Microsatellite instability and colorectal cancer prognosis. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:8332–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. •• Popat S, Hubner R, Houlston RS. Systematic review of microsatellite instability and colorectal cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:609–18. This is an important meta-analysis of retrospective data that shows that MSI-H tumors do not derive clinical benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy when compared with non–MSI-H tumors.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kim GP, Colangelo LH, Wieand HS, et al. Prognostic and predictive roles of high-degree microsatellite instability in colon cancer: a National Cancer Institute-National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Collaborative Study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;23:767–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Thibodeau SN, French AJ, Cunningham JM, et al. Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer: different mutator phenotypes and the principal involvement of hMLH1. Cancer Res. 1998;58:1713–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Slattery ML, Curtin K, Anderson K, et al. Associations between cigarette smoking, lifestyle factors, and microsatellite instability in colon tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;63:1831–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hoogerbrugge N, Willems R, Van Krieken HJ, et al. Very low incidence of microsatellite instability in rectal cancers from families in colon tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;92:64–70.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lanza G, Gafa R, Santini A, et al. Immunohistochemical test for MLH1 and MSH2 expression predicts clinical outcome in stage II and III colorectal cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2359–67.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Lindor NM, Burgart LJ, Leontovich O, et al. Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing in phenotyping colorectal tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:1043–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Carethers JM, Chauhan DP, Fink D, et al. Mismatch repair proficiency and in vitro response to 5-fluorouracil. Gastroenterology. 1999;117:123–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Arnold CN, Goel A, Boland CR. Role of hMLH1 promoter hypermethylation in drug resistance to 5-fluorouracil in colorectal cancer cell lines. Int J Cancer. 2003;106:66–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. • Ribic CM, Sargent DJ, Moore MJ, et al. Tumor microsatellite-instability status as a predictor of benefit from fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:247–57. This is an important study as it was the first to demonstrate the lack of clinical benefit of fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II and stage III colon cancer in the setting of high-frequency microsatellite instability.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Jover R, Zapater P, Castells A, et al. Mismatch repair status in the prediction of benefit from adjuvant fluorouracil chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. Gut. 2006;55:848–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. •• Sargent DJ, Marsoni S, Monges G, et al. Defective mismatch repair as a predictive marker for lack of efficacy of fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy in colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3219–26. This study is important as it is the first prospectively specified analysis of pooled data from several randomized phase 3 clinical trials that validates the prognostic and predictive role of MMR status. This study provides support for MMR status assessment in considering patients for adjuvant 5-FU chemotherapy.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang Y, Jatkoe T, Zhang Y, et al. Gene expression profiles and molecular markers to predict recurrence of Duke’s B colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1564–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Barrier A, Boelle PY, Roser F, et al. Stage II colon cancer prognosis prediction by tumor gene expression profiling. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4685–91.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. • Kerr D, Gray R, Quirke P, et al. A quantitative multigene RT-PCR assay for prediction of recurrence in stage II colon cancer: selection of the genes in four large studies and results of the independent, prospectively designed QUASAR validation study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:169s, abstract 4000. This study provides support for the role of the Oncotype Dx assay in identifying the recurrence risk in patients with stage II colon cancer.

    Google Scholar 

  39. • Venook AP, Niedzwiecki D, Lopatin M, et al. Validation of a 12-gene colon cancer recurrence (RS) in patients with stage II colon cancer from CALGB 9581. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:225s, abstract 351. This study validates the role of the Oncotype Dx assay in identifying the risk of recurrence in patients with stage II colon cancer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward Chu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chu, E. Application of Microsatellite Instability and Oncotype DX in Stage II Colon Cancer Adjuvant Chemotherapy. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 7, 260–266 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-011-0105-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-011-0105-2

Keywords

Navigation