The prognostic and predictive value of excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) protein in 1288 patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with platinum-based therapy: a meta-analysis

Abstract

ERCC1 has a potential to become predictive and prognostic factor enabling treatment tailoring in HNSCC patients.

Predictive biomarkers for combined chemotherapy with 5‑fluorouracil and cisplatin in oro‑ and hypopharyngeal cancers

“…In a meta-analysis of 1,288 HNSCC patients receiving platinum-based therapy, Bišof et al reported that ERCC1 may be a predictive and prognostic factor for individualized therapies for HNSCC patients (45). Our findings also suggest that ERCC1 may be a predictive biomarker for response to chemotherapy with 5-FU/cisplatin in HNSCC patients.…”

Review of emerging biomarkers in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma in the era of immunotherapy and targeted therapy

“…7 Furthermore, results of biomarker analyses can be notoriously inconsistent, making it difficult to draw robust conclusions. 8 Some studies might show negative or discrepant results, while the same biomarker might clearly demonstrate positive associations in other studies-for example, CCND1, 9 cMET, 10 p16, [10][11][12] EGFR, 13 and ERCC1. 14 challenges.…”

“…Furthermore, results of biomarker analyses can be notoriously inconsistent, making it difficult to draw robust conclusions . Some studies might show negative or discrepant results, while the same biomarker might clearly demonstrate positive associations in other studies—for example, CCND1, cMET, p16, EGFR, and ERCC1 . Plausible reasons for such discrepancies might include (a) small sample sizes with inadequate controls; (b) differing study populations with true clinical variability; (c) differing treatment modalities; (d) variations in the biomarker assay, for example, different technological platforms used for detection and measurement; (e) differences in the biomarker source, for example, tissue vs liquid biopsy, or fresh vs fixed tissue; (f) varied antibody specificities and binding affinities among different batches or vendors; (g) biomarker instability, with a risk of false positivity or false negativity; (h) differing statistical testing methods; and (i) other methodological differences between studies, for example, evaluation of mRNA vs protein expression …”

“…Some biomarkers have shown predictive value for outcomes with standard anticancer therapies, including platinum agents, cetuximab‐based chemotherapy, panitumumab‐based chemotherapy, afatinib, radiotherapy, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), and immunotherapy . Such biomarkers are particularly important for clinical trial design, as they can aid in patient selection or stratification at randomization, serve as treatment‐monitoring tools, and help predict which specific patient groups are likely to derive the greatest benefit from a particular treatment.…”

“…In most studies, baseline biomarkers are evaluated for their prognostic role for disease outcomes (regardless of treatment), reflected by critical clinical trial endpoints. Key endpoints include overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), 9,13,46,47 disease-free survival (DFS), 12,48-50 loco-regional (LR) control, 51 and distant metastasis-free survival. 48,49,51 Some biomarkers have shown predictive value for outcomes with standard anticancer therapies, including platinum agents, 13,29-31,51-56 cetuximab-based chemotherapy, 9,25,46 panitumumab-based chemotherapy, 57 afatinib, 58,59 radiotherapy, 60,61 concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), 47,51,62 and immunotherapy.…”