About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Gastroenterology Research and Practice
Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 436985, 7 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/436985
Research Article

Prognostic and Predictive Value of CpG Island Methylator Phenotype in Patients with Locally Advanced Nonmetastatic Sporadic Colorectal Cancer

1Department of Colorectal Surgery, Fudan University, 270 Dong An Road, Shanghai 200032, China
2Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, 270 Dong An Road, Shanghai 200032, China

Received 11 November 2013; Accepted 17 December 2013; Published 14 January 2014

Academic Editor: Qi Li

Copyright © 2014 Yuwei Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose. In the present study, the prognostic significance of CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) in stage II/III sporadic colorectal cancer was evaluated using a five-gene panel. Methods. Fifty stage II/III colorectal cancer patients who received radical resection were included in this study. Promoter methylation of p14ARF, hMLH1, p16INK4a, MGMT, and MINT1 was determined by methylation specific polymerase chain reaction (MSP). CIMP positive was defined as hypermethylation of three or more of the five genes. Impact factors on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method (log-rank test) and adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. Results. Twenty-four percent (12/50) of patients were characterized as CIMP positive. Univariate analysis showed stage III () and CIMP positive () patients who had significantly inferior DFS. In Cox regression analysis, CIMP positive epigenotype was independently related with poor DFS with HR = 2.935 and 95% CI: 1.193–7.220 (). In patients with CIMP positive tumor, those receiving adjuvant chemotherapy had a poor DFS than those without adjuvant chemotherapy (). Conclusions. CIMP positive was significantly correlated with decreased DFS in stage II/III colorectal cancer. Patients with CIMP positive locally advanced sporadic colorectal cancers may not benefit from 5-fluorouracil based adjuvant chemotherapy.

1. Introduction

Colorectal cancer is a major cause of mortality and morbidity throughout the world. With adjuvant chemotherapy as standard management following surgery to treat stage III and stage II patients with high risk factors, the 5-year relative survival rate of locally advanced colorectal cancer was still 69.2% compared with 90.1% among patients with localized disease [1], which highlighted the need of better prognostic and predictive markers to identify those high-risk individuals.

Promoter CpG island hypermethylation resulting in the transcriptional silencing of tumor suppressor genes has been widely observed in colorectal cancer and been increasingly recognized to contribute to the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer. The subset of colorectal cancers with exceptionally high frequency of CpG island methylation were referred to as CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) [2] and showed distinct clinicopathological characteristics [35]. Tumor-specific hypermethylated loci of p14ARF, hMLH1, p16INK4a, MGMT, and MINT1 were proved to be closely related with colorectal cancers [2, 6]. However, the prognostic and predictive value of CIMP in sporadic locally advanced colorectal cancer determined by the five-gene panel had not been evaluated before.

Our study was designed to investigate the prognostic effect of CIMP epigenotype in stages II and III sporadic colorectal cancer interacting with adjuvant chemotherapy in Chinese population utilizing the five-gene panel. The aim of the study was to provide evidence contributing to risk stratification and individualized management for patients with locally advanced sporadic colorectal cancer.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patient Selection

Between July 2004 and November 2004, 50 patients with stage II/III colorectal cancer who had received curative resection and were pathologically confirmed as adenocarcinoma or mucinous adenocarcinoma at the Colorectal Surgery Department, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, were included for analysis. None of the patients were diagnosed as hereditary colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis) or malignant tumors of other organs. Patients who underwent preoperative chemoradiation therapy or were treated with local excision were excluded. Eighteen and 32 patients were staged into stages II and III, respectively, according to the current TNM staging system of the 7th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer’s (AJCC) Staging Manual [7]. Thirty-six patients completed six-month adjuvant chemotherapy using either standard mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX regimen. The clinicopathological features of the enrolled patients were summarized in Table 1. Informed consents were given to the patients prior to sample collection. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center.

tab1
Table 1: Clinicopathological characteristics associated with CIMP status.
2.2. Tissue Samples Collection and Genomic DNA Extraction

Fresh tissue samples were collected within half an hour after the removal of tumor from the patient and were stored at −80°C. Fresh frozen tissues of colorectal cancer were reviewed pathologically to ensure that the sample tissue contained more than 80% cancer cell proportion. Genomic DNA was extracted using EZNA Tissue Kit (Omega Bio-Tek, Norcross, GA, USA) according to manufacturer’s instructions. A260 and A280 of the DNA samples were tested to measure the quantity and purity of genomic DNA.

2.3. Bisulfite Modification and Methylation Specific PCR

Bisulfite modification of 500 ng genomic DNA was performed using EZ DNA methylation kit (Zymo Research, Orange, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Methylation specific PCR (MSP) was performed as described previously [8]. Briefly, 50 ng of bisulfite-modified genomic DNA, standard reaction buffer, 10 pmol of each primers, and 0.75 units of Hotstart Taq DNA polymerase (Qiagen, GmbH) were mixed into a total volume of 25 μL. Amplifications were carried out in a thermal cycler (Perkin-Elmer, Foster City, CA, USA). Primer sequences and cycling conditions for methylated and unmethylated strand of p14ARF, hMLH1, p16INK4a, MGMT, and MINT1 were described in previous study [8]. PCR products were separated by 2% agarose gel and visualized under UV illumination.

CIMP classification was based on the number of methylated genes of the panel markers. Tumors were classified as CIMP positive if 3 or more markers were methylated or CIMP negative if none or less than 3 methylated markers were observed.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Tumor size and age were categorized into two groups using median as cut-off value. Tumors located from the cecum to transverse colon were classified into proximal colon cancer. Tumors located from the left colonic flexure to rectum were categorized into distal colorectal cancer. Correlations of CIMP epigenotype with categorical clinicopathological variables were assessed using Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact probability tests as appropriate. Comparisons of continuous variables were performed using Mann-Whitney test.

The primary clinical outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). DFS was defined as the time from surgical resection of colorectal cancer to the date of the local recurrence or first distal metastasis confirmed pathologically or by clinical imaging or to the last follow-up date. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from surgery to the date of patient’s death or to the last follow-up date. The impact factors of DFS and OS were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method (log-rank test) and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, respectively. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for DFS and OS were estimated using Cox regression. Furthermore, stratified survival analysis was performed according to CIMP epigenotype.

All values presented were two sided. A value <0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. All statistical tests were performed using SPSS (version 20.0, SPSS Inc, Somers, NY, USA) software package.

3. Results

3.1. Clinicopathological and Molecular Features

CIMP positive epigenotype was detected in 24.0% (12/50) of patients. Representative results of the electrophoresis of MSP products can be seen in our previous paper [8]. The correlations between clinicopathological characteristics and CIMP epigenotype are summarized in Table 1. CIMP positive was found to be associated significantly with proximal site (), stage III disease (), and poorly differentiated tumor (). Age, sex, histology, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, preoperative CEA level, and adjuvant chemotherapy were not significantly correlated with CIMP epigenotype.

3.2. Influence of CIMP Epigenotype on DFS

The median DFS was 60 months. Three local recurrences were identified. Nineteen cases of distal metastasis were confirmed before the last follow-up date. Liver metastasis was most common, occurring in 9 patients while the lung was the second common metastatic organ involving 6 patients. The 5-year disease-free survival was 58% in all patients.

In the univariate analysis, TNM stage and CIMP epigenotype were the only variables which showed significant impact on DFS. Patients with stage III disease (5-year DFS: 47.1% versus 74.1%, , Table 2, Figure 1(a)) and CIMP positive epigenotype (5-year DFS: 31.3% versus 64.1%, , Table 2, Figure 1(b)) presented worse DFS. None of the analyzed variables had significant influence on OS (Table 3). In the multivariate analysis, CIMP epigenotype was the only independent prognostic factor on DFS (HR = 2.935, 95% CI: 1.193–7.220 and , Table 2).

tab2
Table 2: Univariate and multivariate analysis of the prognostic effect of CIMP status and clinicopathological features in stage cases for DFS.
tab3
Table 3: Univariate analysis of the prognostic effect of CIMP status and clinicopathological features in stage cases for OS.
fig1
Figure 1: Disease-free survival analysis according to stage and CIMP status. Patients with CIMP positive tumors had a marginally significant poor DFS than those with CIMP negative tumors with value =0.014 (a). Patients with stage II disease showed better DFS than those with stage III disease with value =0.049 (b). DFS: disease-free survival, CIMP: CpG island methylator phenotype.
3.3. Analysis of the Interaction between CIMP Epigenotype and Adjuvant Chemotherapy

Among CIMP negative patients, adjuvant chemotherapy had no effect on DFS (, Figure 2(a)). Surprisingly, among patients with CIMP positive tumors, those undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy had a decreased DFS significantly (, Figure 2(b)). In patients receiving surgery, CIMP epigenotype had no impact on DFS (, Figure 2(c)). However, in patients administrated with surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy, CIMP positive epigenotype resulted in a significant reduction of DFS (, Figure 2(d)).

fig2
Figure 2: Disease-free survival analysis stratified by CIMP status and treatment jointly. In CIMP negative tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy showed no effect on DFS with value =0.146 (a). Chemotherapy decreased DFS in CIMP+ tumors significantly with value =0.023 (b). CIMP status showed no effect on DFS in patients treated with surgery alone with value =0.462 (c). In patients receiving surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy, CIMP positive patients had a significantly poor DFS than those negative with value <0.001 (d). DFS: disease-free survival, CIMP: CpG island methylator phenotype.

4. Discussion

In the present study, we identified a cohort of 50 stage II/III colorectal cancer patients treated with curative surgery alone or curative surgery followed by 5-FU based adjuvant chemotherapy and characterized the patients as CIMP positive or CIMP negative by performing methylation specific PCR (MSP) of 5 genes.

The prevalence of CIMP positive was reported to be 9%–90% in colorectal cancer and ranged widely between studies of populations of different ethnic backgrounds [9]. In our cohort, 24.0% of CIMP positive cases were detected. Clinicopathological features previously reported to be associated with CIMP positive epigenotype include female sex, older age of diagnosis, proximal colon, poor differentiation, mucinous carcinoma, low frequency of KRAS mutation, and high frequency of BRAF mutation [10, 11]. CIMP positive colorectal cancers enrolled in this study showed a predilection for proximal site and poor differentiation in consensus with previous reports [10, 11].

Furthermore, the prognostic effect of clinicopathological variables and CIMP status on stage II/III colorectal cancer was investigated. Our data suggested an unfavorable prognosis in patients with CIMP positive tumors and stage III tumors (Figure 1). In the Cox regression analysis, only CIMP epigenotype was significantly correlated with the DFS. In consistent with other studies [3, 1216], our findings highlighted that the influence of CIMP status on DFS was independent of TNM stage and other clinicopathological variables included in the multivariate analysis (Table 3). In the study of Kim et al. [16], 320 cases of colorectal cancer were analyzed using MethyLight assay, and CIMP positive was proved to be significantly associated with poor prognosis. Inconsistent with most reports, Ogino et al. [17] suggested that patients with CIMP-high tumors experienced a significantly lower colon cancer-specific mortality adjusted for other prognostic factors.

In metastatic or recurrent colorectal cancer treated with 5-fluorouracil based chemotherapy, Ogino et al. [18] and Shen et al. [19] reported that CIMP positive defined a group of cases with markedly reduced overall survival. These results indicated a potential role of CIMP status in chemotherapy resistance of colorectal cancer. However, the interaction between CIMP epigenotype and adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II/III colorectal cancer remains controversial. Jover et al. [20] examined a population based cohort of 302 stage II/III CRC patients and found that those patients with positive CIMP did not benefit from 5-fluorouracil based adjuvant chemotherapy. The benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy was limited to patients with CIMP negative tumors. Evidence of our study also showed that in patients with CIMP positive stage II/III disease, patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy showed inferior DFS than those without adjuvant chemotherapy. However, the results varied in other studies. Study of Van Rijnsoever et al. [21] suggested that CIMP positive predicted survival benefit from 5-fluorouracil based adjuvant chemotherapy independently in 103 stage III colorectal cancer patients. The evidence of Min et al. [22] indicated a positive effect of chemotherapy on DFS in CIMP positive stage II/III colorectal cancer. Heterogeneous results on prevalence, prognostic effect, and predictive value of CIMP epigenotype in sporadic colorectal cancer may be due to no consensus standard to define CIMP regarding panel gene markers, thresholds to define CIMP positive, and techniques to measure methylation status of maker genes [9]. In fact, there has been no consensus on the definition of CIMP positive yet. Different authors defined tumors that had methylation of two of three [21, 23], three of five [12, 24], three of six [25], or three of seven [2] genes as CIMP positive. The criterion adopted in our study referred to previous studies [2, 12, 26]. Actually, if the positive threshold to two or more of five genes reduced, the impact of CIMP on DFS lost its significance ().

Small sample size within each subgroup categorized by CIMP status, TNM stage, and chemotherapy limited the detection of the difference in prognostic significance. Potential selection bias could not be excluded in this retrospective study. It is noteworthy that the prognostic influence of CIMP status on stage II tumors and potential interactions with lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and other clinical high risk factors of stage II colorectal cancer remains unclear since only 18 stage II cases were include in our study. The clinical decision-making regarding the adjuvant treatment of stage II is on the basis of identifying high-risk individuals by assessing the clinicopathological high risk factors. However, conventional clinicopathological parameters cannot yield satisfying performance to guide the individualized therapy. Integrating molecular biomarkers such as CIMP epigenotype seems to be promising in improving the predictive accuracy. Therefore, a prospective study with abundant case numbers of stage II patients is needed to evaluate the prognostic value of CIMP status in order to improve individualized therapeutic strategies.

5. Conclusions

To conclude, our data suggested that CIMP positive was an unfavorable independent prognostic factor in stage II/III sporadic colorectal cancer in Chinese population. Stage II/III patients with CIMP positive epigenotype may not benefit from 5-fluorouracil based adjuvant chemotherapy. Further studies are merited to confirm the potential role of CIMP status assessment as a high risk factor improving the stratifying of stage II/III colorectal cancer. If CIMP positive epigenotype was validated as a marker for chemoresistance of 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin based standard regimen, the benefit of these patients from irinotecan based chemotherapy should be evaluated.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Authors’ Contribution

Yuwei Wang and Yadong Long contributed equally to this work.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the grants of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 81001055), Shanghai Pujiang Program (no. 13PJD008), and China Medical Foundation (no. 201302).

References

  1. R. Siegel, D. Naishadham, and A. Jemal, “Cancer statistics, 2013,” CA Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 11–30, 2013.
  2. M. Toyota, N. Ahuja, M. Ohe-Toyota, J. G. Herman, S. B. Baylin, and J.-P. J. Issa, “CpG island methylator phenotype in colorectal cancer,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 96, no. 15, pp. 8681–8686, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. N. Hawkins, M. Norrie, K. Cheong et al., “CpG island methylation in sporadic colorectal cancers and its relationship to microsatellite instability,” Gastroenterology, vol. 122, no. 5, pp. 1376–1387, 2002. View at Scopus
  4. D. J. Weisenberger, K. D. Siegmund, M. Campan et al., “CpG island methylator phenotype underlies sporadic microsatellite instability and is tightly associated with BRAF mutation in colorectal cancer,” Nature Genetics, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 787–793, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. A. Goel, T. Nagasaka, C. N. Arnold et al., “The CpG island methylator phenotype and chromosomal instability are inversely correlated in sporadic colorectal cancer,” Gastroenterology, vol. 132, no. 1, pp. 127–138, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. A. M. Jubb, S. M. Bell, and P. Quirke, “Methylation and colorectal cancer,” Journal of Pathology, vol. 195, no. 1, pp. 111–134, 2001.
  7. S. B. Edge and C. C. Compton, “The american joint committee on cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1471–1474, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. G. Cai, Y. Xu, H. Lu et al., “Clinicopathologic and molecular features of sporadic microsatellite- and chromosomal-stable colorectal cancers,” International Journal of Colorectal Disease, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 365–373, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. L. A. E. Hughes, C. A. J. Khalid-de Bakker, K. M. Smits et al., “The CpG island methylator phenotype in colorectal cancer: progress and problems,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, vol. 1825, no. 1, pp. 77–85, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. J. R. Jass, “Classification of colorectal cancer based on correlation of clinical, morphological and molecular features,” Histopathology, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 113–130, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. W. S. Samowitz, H. Albertsen, J. Herrick et al., “Evaluation of a large, population-based sample supports a CpG island methylator phenotype in colon cancer,” Gastroenterology, vol. 129, no. 3, pp. 837–845, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. R. L. Ward, K. Cheong, S.-L. Ku, A. Meagher, T. O'Connor, and N. J. Hawkins, “Adverse prognostic effect of methylation in colorectal cancer is reversed by microsatellite instability,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 21, no. 20, pp. 3729–3736, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. S. Lee, N.-Y. Cho, E. J. Yoo, J. H. Kim, and G. H. Kang, “CpG island methylator phenotype in colorectal cancers: comparison of the new and classic CPG island methylator phenotype marker panels,” Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, vol. 132, no. 10, pp. 1657–1665, 2008. View at Scopus
  14. L. Barault, C. Charon-Barra, V. Jooste et al., “Hypermethylator phenotype in sporadic colon cancer: study on a population-based series of 582 cases,” Cancer Research, vol. 68, no. 20, pp. 8541–8546, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. S. Lee, N.-Y. Cho, M. Choi, E. J. Yoo, J.-H. Kim, and G. H. Kang, “Clinicopathological features of CpG island methylator phenotype-positive colorectal cancer and its adverse prognosis in relation to KRAS/BRAF mutation,” Pathology International, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 104–113, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. J. H. Kim, S. H. Shin, H. J. Kwon, N. Y. Cho, and G. H. Kang, “Prognostic implications of CpG island hypermethylator phenotype in colorectal cancers,” Virchows Archiv, vol. 455, no. 6, pp. 485–494, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. S. Ogino, K. Nosho, G. J. Kirkner et al., “CpG island methylator phenotype, microsatellite instability, BRAF mutation and clinical outcome in colon cancer,” Gut, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 90–96, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. S. Ogino, J. A. Meyerhardt, T. Kawasaki et al., “CpG island methylation, response to combination chemotherapy, and patient survival in advanced microsatellite stable colorectal carcinoma,” Virchows Archiv, vol. 450, no. 5, pp. 529–537, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. L. Shen, P. J. Catalano, A. B. Benson III, P. O'Dwyer, S. R. Hamilton, and J.-P. J. Issa, “Association between DNA methylation and shortened survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 13, no. 20, pp. 6093–6098, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. R. Jover, T. Nguyen, L. Prezcarbonell et al., “5-fluorouracil adjuvant chemotherapy does not increase survival in patients with CpG island methylator phenotype colorectal cancer,” Gastroenterology, vol. 140, no. 4, pp. 1174–1181, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. M. Van Rijnsoever, H. Elsaleh, D. Joseph, K. McCaul, and B. Iacopetta, “CpG island methylator phenotype is an independent predictor of survival benefit from 5-fluorouracil in stage III colorectal cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 2898–2903, 2003. View at Scopus
  22. B.-H. Min, J. M. Bae, E. J. Lee et al., “The CpG island methylator phenotype may confer a survival benefit in patients with stage II or III colorectal carcinomas receiving fluoropyrimidine-based adjuvant chemotherapy,” BMC Cancer, vol. 11, article 344, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. A. Rashid, L. Shen, J. S. Morris, J.-P. J. Issa, and S. R. Hamilton, “CpG island methylation in colorectal adenomas,” American Journal of Pathology, vol. 159, no. 3, pp. 1129–1135, 2001. View at Scopus
  24. M. Toyota, N. Ahuja, H. Suzuki et al., “Aberrant methylation in gastric cancer associated with the CpG island methylator phenotype,” Cancer Research, vol. 59, no. 21, pp. 5438–5442, 1999. View at Scopus
  25. H. Yamamoto, Y. Min, F. Itoh et al., “Differential involvement of the hypermethylator phenotype in hereditary and sporadic colorectal cancers with high-frequency microsatellite instability,” Genes Chromosomes and Cancer, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 322–325, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. H. Kim, Y. H. Kim, S. E. Kim, N.-G. Kim, S. H. Noh, and H. Kim, “Concerted promoter hypermethylation of hMLHI, p16INK4A, and E-cadherin in gastric carcinomas with microsatellite instability,” Journal of Pathology, vol. 200, no. 1, pp. 23–31, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus