2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.01.036
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differences Between Colon Cancer Primaries and Metastases Using a Molecular Assay for Tumor Radiation Sensitivity Suggest Implications for Potential Oligometastatic SBRT Patient Selection

Abstract: Purpose/Objectives We have previously developed a multigene expression model of tumor radiosensitivity (RSI) with clinical validation in multiple independent cohorts (breast, rectal, esophageal, and head and neck). The purpose of this study was to assess differences in RSI scores between primary colon cancer and metastases. Methods and Materials Patients were identified from our institutional IRB approved prospective observational protocol. A total of 704 metastatic and 1,362 primary lesions were obtained fr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
57
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 83 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
57
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Large differences in RSI based on anatomical site of metastases (P b .0001) were observed, which persisted when the analysis was restricted to lesions from the same patient (P b .0001). Initial clinical validation in a cohort of 29 liver and lung metastases patients treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy confirmed these results [310]. Appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of the RSI is essential when evaluating these results and the implications.…”
Section: An Example Of Personalized Therapy In Radiation Oncologymentioning
confidence: 74%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Large differences in RSI based on anatomical site of metastases (P b .0001) were observed, which persisted when the analysis was restricted to lesions from the same patient (P b .0001). Initial clinical validation in a cohort of 29 liver and lung metastases patients treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy confirmed these results [310]. Appreciation of the strengths and weaknesses of the RSI is essential when evaluating these results and the implications.…”
Section: An Example Of Personalized Therapy In Radiation Oncologymentioning
confidence: 74%
“…These efforts could be significantly augmented by genetic analysis, providing superior selection of the target population, and therefore increasing the likelihood of success. At the vanguard to personalized therapy within radiation oncology is the development of a radiation sensitivity index (RSI), a multigene expression model proposed to predict radiation responsiveness (a high RSI indicates radioresistance) [310][311][312][313]. The RSI signature has been previously validated [313], and was recently applied to primary and metastatic colon cancer samples [310].…”
Section: An Example Of Personalized Therapy In Radiation Oncologymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…RSI was designed to detect intrinsic tumor radiosensitivity using 10 genes that play a role in DNA damage response, histone deacetylation, cell-cycle regulation, apoptosis, and proliferation. (12,28,29) RSI has been shown to predict outcomes among patients treated with radiation therapy with breast cancer(13,30), head and neck cancer, rectal cancer, esophageal cancer(12) pancreatic cancer,(15), glioblastoma(16), and metastatic colorectal cancer(14). In contrast, 12-CK was designed using 12 immune-related and inflammation-related genes with the purpose of detecting intra-tumoral lymphoid cell aggregates as a marker of immune activation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The RSI score has previously been validated in six independent, prospectively collected data sets, including esophageal, rectal, head and neck, breast, and colon cancer patients [10,11,14]. The RSI score is not specific to pancreatic cancer, but includes genes that affect DNA damage response, histone deacetylation, the cell cycle, apoptosis and cellular proliferation [11].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%