Association of Matrix Metalloproteinase 7 Expression With Pathologic Response After Neoadjuvant Treatment in Patients With Resected Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.
Journal
JAMA surgery
ISSN: 2168-6262
Titre abrégé: JAMA Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101589553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2022
01 07 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
26
5
2022
medline:
16
7
2022
entrez:
25
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains controversial. A favorable pathologic response (complete or marked tumor regression) to NAT is associated with better outcomes in patients with resected PDAC. The role of NAT for early systemic control compared with immediate surgical resection for PDAC is under investigation. In the era of precision medicine, biomarkers for patient selection and prediction of therapy response are crucial. To evaluate the use of assessment for protein expression on fine-needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy specimens in predicting pathologic response to NAT in treatment-naive patients. This was a single-institution prognostic study from a high-volume center for pancreatic cancer. All specimens were obtained between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2018, with a median (SE) follow-up of 20.2 (1.4) months. Analysis of the data was performed from October 1, 2019, to April 30, 2021. Targeted RNA sequencing of frozen FNA biopsy specimens from a discovery cohort of 23 patients was performed to identify genes with aberrant expression that was associated with patients' pathologic response to NAT. Immunohistochemical staining was performed on an additional 80 FNA biopsy specimens to assess expression of matrix metalloproteinase 7 (MMP-7) and its association with pathologic response. Receiver operating characteristic curves for prediction of favorable pathologic response were determined. In the discovery cohort (12 [52.1%] male; 3 [13.0%] Black and 20 [86.9%] White), RNA sequencing showed that lower MMP-7 expression was associated with favorable pathologic response (College of American Pathologists system scores of 0 [complete response] and 1 [marked response]). In the validation cohort (40 [50.0%] female; 9 [11.3%] Black and 71 [88.7%] White), patients with negative MMP-7 expression were significantly more likely to have a favorable pathologic response (odds ratio, 21.25; 95% CI, 6.19-72.95; P = .001). Receiver operating characteristic curves for prediction of favorable pathologic response from multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression modeling showed that MMP-7 expression increased the area under the curve from 0.726 to 0.906 (P < .001) even after stratifying by resectability status. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value of MMP-7 protein expression on FNA biopsy specimens in predicting unfavorable pathologic response (scores of 2 [partial response] or 3 [poor or no response]) were 88.2% and 73.9%, respectively. Assessment of MMP-7 expression on FNA biopsy specimens at the time of diagnosis may help identify patients who would benefit the most from NAT.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35612832
pii: 2792700
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.1362
pmc: PMC9134044
doi:
Substances chimiques
MMP7 protein, human
EC 3.4.24.23
Matrix Metalloproteinase 7
EC 3.4.24.23
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e221362Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Dis Markers. 2016;2016:9895721
pubmed: 27429508
J Gastrointest Surg. 2016 May;20(5):899-904
pubmed: 26921028
Front Oncol. 2020 Feb 28;10:245
pubmed: 32185128
Sci Rep. 2013;3:1870
pubmed: 23694968
Biology (Basel). 2020 Apr 18;9(4):
pubmed: 32325664
Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Feb 1;27(3):740-748
pubmed: 33082211
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jun 1;38(16):1763-1773
pubmed: 32105518
Ann Surg. 2016 Dec;264(6):1073-1081
pubmed: 26756760
J Clin Oncol. 2001 Feb 15;19(4):1118-27
pubmed: 11181677
Ann Surg. 2018 Sep;268(3):408-420
pubmed: 30080739
World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Nov 21;24(43):4846-4861
pubmed: 30487695
CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Mar;67(2):93-99
pubmed: 28094848
N Engl J Med. 2018 Dec 20;379(25):2395-2406
pubmed: 30575490
Gut. 2017 Sep;66(9):1677-1687
pubmed: 27432539
Histopathology. 2016 Jan;68(2):210-20
pubmed: 25945396
Ann Surg. 2021 Feb 1;273(2):341-349
pubmed: 30946090
J Clin Pathol. 2005 Dec;58(12):1242-8
pubmed: 16311341
Int J Oncol. 2005 May;26(5):1283-9
pubmed: 15809719
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007 May;16(5):886-91
pubmed: 17507610
Dig Liver Dis. 2016 Mar;48(3):223-30
pubmed: 26769569
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 Jan;71(1):7-33
pubmed: 33433946
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2020 May 5;50(5):483-489
pubmed: 32083290
Clin Cancer Res. 2021 Feb 15;27(4):1082-1093
pubmed: 33188144
EMBO Mol Med. 2018 Aug;10(8):
pubmed: 29941541
Front Oncol. 2020 Apr 15;10:516
pubmed: 32351893
Clin Cancer Res. 2004 Apr 15;10(8):2832-45
pubmed: 15102692
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Apr;22(4):1168-75
pubmed: 25352267
Ann Surg. 2018 Oct;268(4):610-619
pubmed: 30080723
Cells. 2020 Nov 30;9(12):
pubmed: 33266052
Semin Oncol. 2019 Feb;46(1):19-27
pubmed: 30630600
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019 Jan;16(1):11-26
pubmed: 30341417