Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Review ArticlePROCEEDINGS OF THE CHINA –UNITED KINGDOM CANCER (CUKC) CONFERENCE 2015 (Cardiff, Wales, UK)R

Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer

ANDREW J. YIU and CHU Y. YIU
Anticancer Research March 2016, 36 (3) 1093-1102;
ANDREW J. YIU
1Guy's, King's and St. Thomas' School of Medical Education, King's College London, London, U.K.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
CHU Y. YIU
2Department of Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, London, U.K.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide, with 1.36 million people diagnosed in 2012. The prognosis of colorectal cancer is better with an earlier diagnosis. The outcome of colorectal cancer may also be improved by targeting pathways involved in colorectal cancer formation, such as anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy. An understanding of colorectal carcinogenesis is essential for the design of molecular targeting. Recent advances in the molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer, methylation of DNA in colorectal cancer, and micro-RNA biogenesis, and their involvement in colorectal cancer have resulted in the identification of many new colorectal biomarkers. Such biomarkers may be used for earlier diagnosis of, selection of ‘personalised’ therapy for, and prognosis of colorectal cancer. Many of these biomarkers appear promising in small-scale studies. However, validation of their effectiveness with large-scale clinical trials is needed before routine clinical application. To this end, the recently established consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer would enable like-for-like comparisons of the treatment outcomes of clinical trials.

  • Colorectal cancer
  • biomarkers
  • consensus molecular subtypes
  • chromosome instability (CIN)
  • microsatellite instability (MSI)
  • CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP)
  • methylated DNA
  • microRNAs
  • epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)
  • review

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide, with 1.36 million people diagnosed in 2012 (1). The prognosis of colorectal cancer is related to the stage at diagnosis, with a 5-year survival rate of 90% at early diagnosis and less than 10% when distant metastases develop (2). Advances in the understanding of colorectal carcinogenesis offer opportunities to identify biomarkers for earlier diagnosis, selection of ‘personalised’ treatment strategy and in providing prognostic markers for colorectal cancer, with a potential to improve the outcome of this disease.

Herein recent advances in the molecular classification of colorectal cancer based on gene expression, the use of aberrant DNA methylation markers and microRNA biogenesis and microRNA markers in the management of colorectal cancer are being reviewed.

Recent Advances in the Molecular Subtyping of Colorectal Cancer

Since Fearon and Vogelstein (3) formulated the multi-step events of the molecular pathway of colorectal cancer formation involving oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes, there have been considerable advances in the understanding of colorectal carcinogenesis. Four different genomic and epigenomic instabilities have been described for colorectal cancer. These are chromosome instability accounting for 85% of colorectal cancer, microsatellite instability (MSI), CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) and DNA global hypomethylation (4). Advances in the understanding of colorectal carcinogenesis continue to progress through research on gene expression by many groups. Various colorectal subtypes based on gene expression have been reported. These subtypes appear to be dissimilar and could be a result of the different patient populations employed, methods used and choice of gene-expression platforms, as there is a lack of a standard protocol for colorectal cancer subtyping. To resolve these inconsistencies the CRC Subtyping Consortium (CRCSC) was formed (5). The CRCSC consists of six international expert teams each with its description of colorectal cancer subtypes.

By collaborating in large-scale data sharing and analytics, involving 18 colorectal cancer datasets from the public, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and proprietary sources, the CRCSC found common features among six independent classification systems and was able to agree on four consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) with distinguishing characteristics for colorectal cancer. These are designated as CMS1, CMS2, CMS3 and CMS4. However, no single molecular event is confined to a subtype. There remained ‘mixed or indeterminate’ samples amounting to 13% which had heterogeneous patterns of CMS mixtures but did not constitute a fifth subtype.

CMS1. CMS1 (microsatellite instability or MSI, immune) was found in 14% of samples (5). It was characterized by microsatellite instability, CIMP-high, hypermutation, BRAF mutations, increased expression of genes related to diffuse immune infiltration consisting mainly of TH1 and cytotoxic T-cells, and activation of immune evasion pathway, low somatic copy number alterations (SCNAs) and with a worse prognosis after relapse. CMS1 included most MSI carcinomas with overexpression of DNA damage-repair proteins and impaired DNA mismatch repair ability. CMS1 was frequently found in right-sided tumours with high histological grade in females.

CMS2. CMS2 (canonical) comprised 37% of samples (5). It had a high frequency of SCNA alterations indicating higher chromosome instability. CMS2 had the greater number of copy number gains in oncogenes and copy number losses in tumour-suppressor genes compared with other subtypes. It was associated with a marked up-regulation of WNT and downstream targets associated with colorectal cancer. CMS2 carcinomas were found mainly on the left side. It was also related to better survival on tumour recurrence.

CMS3. CMS3 (metabolic) accounted for 13% of samples (5). It exhibited mixed MSI status, low SCNA and low CIMP. About 30% of samples were hypermutated and overlapped with MSI status. In TCGA samples, there were more frequent CIMP-low clusters with intermediate levels of gene hypermethylation. There was over-representation of KRAS mutations and metabolic deregulation.

CMS4. CMS4 (mesenchymal) was present in 23% of samples (5). It was associated with high SCNA confirming chromosome instability, stromal infiltration, TGFβ activation and angiogenesis, matrix remodelling pathways and complement-mediated inflammatory system, as shown by up-regulation of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. Patients with CMS4 carcinomas were usually diagnosed at more advance stages of III and IV and had worse overall survival and worse relapse-free survival, taking into consideration clinicopathological features, MSI status and KRAS and BRAF mutations.

There were correlations between gene-expression subtypes and protein levels, with CMS1 exhibiting up-regulation in levels of immune response proteins and CMS4 significant overexpression of proteins involved in stromal invasion, mesenchymal activation and complement pathways. Supervised microRNA analysis revealed significant subtype-specific miRNA regulations. Comparison between gene-expression patterns in colorectal cancer specimens and adjacent normal colon and left colon specimens from individuals without colorectal cancer showed a clear distinction. The CMS of colorectal cancer will help improve clinical translation and management of patients.

Biomarkers in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

Mismatch-repair deficiency. Mismatch-repair deficiency causing many somatic mutations may produce ‘non-self’ immunogenic antigens or neoantigens, as shown by the expression of immune checkpoint ligands PD1, PD-LI, CTLA-4, LAG-3 and IDO (6). It was postulated that mismatch repair-deficient tumours might respond to immune checkpoint blockage because of these neoantigens. Le et al. performed a phase II study using pembrolizumab, an anti-programmed death 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, to test this hypothesis (7). Pembrolizumab was administered to 41 patients with advancing metastatic carcinoma. Some cases had mismatch repair deficiency while others did not. In patients with mismatch repair-deficient cancer, the immune-related objective response rate was 40% (four out of 10 patients) and progression-free survival rate was 78% (seven out of nine patients). In patients without mismatch-repair deficiency, the corresponding response rates were 0% (none of eight patients) and 11% (two out of 18 patients), respectively. This study showed that mismatch-repair status of a tumour could predict response to therapy with pembrolizumab.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). In high-risk stage II and III colorectal cancer, a combination of therapies such as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or capecitabine with oxaliplatin (XELOX) are used (8). For metastatic colorectal cancer FOLFOX or 5-FU/leucovorin/irinotecan (FOLFIRI) are standard treatment (9, 10). An increased understanding of colorectal carcinogenesis pathways has led to the addition of monoclonal antibodies to EGFR, cetuximab or panitumumab, to block EGFR, thereby preventing activation of signal transduction pathways involving RAS, PI3K-AKT and SRC kinase by ligands such as EGFR (13). The effectiveness of these monoclonal antibodies has been confirmed by phase II and III clinical trials. However, subset analyses of these trials show that patients with KRAS mutations in exon 2 codon 12 or 13 do not respond to this treatment. The KRAS mutation status should, therefore, be determined before treatment with anti-EGFR therapy (11-13). Further studies showed that KRAS mutations may also occur at codon 61 in exon 3 and 2% at codon 146 in exon 4 (14). NRAS mutations were found in 2.6% of samples, mainly in codon 61. These carcinomas had a significantly lower response rate to cetuximab and chemotherapy (15, 16).

BRAF. BRAF is an oncogene present in the RAS-RAF-MAPK pathway (17). In colorectal cancer, the most commonly reported mutation is V600E (18). BRAF mutation has an adverse prognosis irrespective of treatment (19). The value of BRAF mutation as a marker in the treatment of colorectal cancer remains unclear.

PIK3CA. PIK3CA is a proto-oncogene encoding phosphatidylinositol-3-kinases (PI3K) involved in the EGFR tyrosine-kinase domain, which may lead to phosphorylation of AKT and the activation of AKT-mTOR signaling pathway (20). Colorectal cancer studies have produced conflicting results on the use of PIK3CA as a predictive marker for therapy. Recent meta-analysis showed that mutations in exon 20 of PIK3CA may act as a marker for resistance to anti-EGFR therapy (21, 22).

PTEN. PTEN is a tumour-suppressor gene encoding a phosphatase protein that suppresses the PI3K-AKT signalling pathway. The role of PTEN as a predictive marker for anti-EGFR therapy lacks consensus (23).

The role of BRAF, PIK3A and PTEN are subjects of the Focus4 study, a molecularly stratified randomized controlled trial based in the UK, which started recruitment in 2014 (www.focus4trial.org).

DNA Methylation as a Cause of Colorectal Cancer

Gene expression may be influenced by changes in the DNA sequence that are not permanent changes, as in mutations. Such epigenetic changes include DNA methylation, histone modifications and post-transcriptional gene regulation through non-coding RNAs, and are part of normal cell function and activity. Disturbance of these epigenetic mechanisms may lead to cancer formation (24).

DNA methylation occurs when a methyl group is covalently added to the 5’ position of the pyrimidine ring of cytosines within the CpG dinucleotides (25). Methylation of CpG islands in the promoter region of a gene may prevent access to the transcriptional process, and consequently affect gene-expression levels (2). DNA methylation generally acts to suppress gene transcription. In colorectal cancer aberrant DNA methylation is found to be involved in many genes, for example, DNA mismatch-repair genes, the WNT signalling pathway genes and cell cycles regulating genes (2, 26, 27). A subgroup of colorectal cancer with extensive methylated genes is known as CIMP+ (28).

DNA Methylation Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer

Methylated DNA in stool. Imperiale et al. compared a non-invasive multitarget stool DNA test consisting of a quantitative molecular assay for KRAS mutations, aberrant NDGR4 and BMP3 methylation and β-actin with a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) (29).

The study involved 9,989 asymptomatic individuals with average risk for colorectal cancer, aged between 50 to 84 years, who were due to have screening colonoscopy. All participants provided a stool specimen before bowel preparation for DNA and FIT analysis. It was found that 65 (0.7%) had colorectal cancer and 757 (7.6%) had advanced precancerous lesions (advanced adenomas or sessile serrated polyps ≥1 cm) on colonoscopy. Stool DNA test performed significantly better than FIT in diagnosing both these types of neoplastic lesions: it detected 92.3% of colorectal cancer compared with 73.8% by FIT (p=0.002); stool DNA test detected 42.4% of advanced precancerous lesions, while FIT detected 23.8% (p<0.001). Similarly, for polyps with high-grade dysplasia, stool DNA test detected 69.2% and FIT 46.2% (p=0.004) of these lesions. For serrated sessile polyps ≥1 cm, 42.4% were detected by stool DNA test and 5.1% by FIT (p<0.001).

In participants with non-advanced lesions or negative findings, the specificity with DNA testing was 86.6% and with FIT 94.9% (p<0.001). In those with negative findings on colonoscopy, the specificity with DNA testing was 89.8% and with FIT 96.4% (p<0.001). In order to detect one colorectal cancer case, 154 individuals would need to be screened using colonoscopy, 166 with stool DNA test, and 208 with FIT. These findings suggest a role for the multitarget stool DNA test for screening of colorectal cancer. In August 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of these stool DNA markers for the screening of colorectal cancer. By incorporating an immunochemical assay for human haemoglobin, these stool DNA markers are now commercially available for the screening of colorectal cancer.

Zhang et al. performed a meta-analysis of methylated genes in the detection of colorectal cancer in stool by analysing 37 articles with 4,484 patients (30). SFRP2 methylation for detection of cancer had a sensitivity of 79% [95% confidence interval (CI)=75-82%], a specificity of 93% (95% CI=90-96%), the diagnostic odds ratio was 47.57 (95% CI=20.08-112.72), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.9565. For adenoma detection, SFRP2 methylation had a sensitivity of 43% (95% CI=38-49%), a specificity of 94% (95% CI=91-97%), the diagnostic odds ratio was 11.06 (95% CI=5.77-21.18), and the area under the curve was 0.9563. SFRP2 methylation, therefore, has the potential to be used as a non-invasive screening test for colorectal cancer.

Methylated DNA in the circulation. Church et al. prospectively assessed the value of circulating methylated SEPT9 DNA for detecting colorectal cancer in a screening population (31). A total of 7,941 asymptomatic men (45%) and women (55%) aged ≥50 years, with a mean age of 60 years, who were due for screening colonoscopy at 32 US and German clinics took part. Blood plasma was taken before bowel preparation. Methylated SEPT9 DNA of all patients with colorectal cancer and stratified random samples of other individuals, not the whole study population, were analyzed blindly using commercially available assay in three different laboratories. A standardised sensitivity of 48.2% (95% CI=32.4-63.6%; crude rate=50.9%) was obtained from 53 patients with colorectal cancer and from 1,457 individuals without. In patients with colorectal cancer stage I, methylation of SEPT9 DNA had a sensitivity of 35.0%, for stage II 63%, stage III 46.0% and stage IV 77.4%. The specificity was 91.5% (95% CI=89.7 to 93.1%; crude rate=91.4%). However, for advanced adenomas the sensitivity was only 11.2%.

Pedersen et al. compared two methylated DNA markers BCAT1 and IKZF1 from 74 patients with colorectal cancer and 144 healthy controls (32). Methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction assays were developed to measure the level of these markers extracted from plasma. Methylated BCAT1 detected 48 (65%) out of 74 carcinomas and methylated IKZF1, 50 (68%) out of the 74. By combining both markers, 57 out of 74 cases of cancer (77%) were detected. In the 144 healthy controls, only five (4%) were positive with methylated BCAT1 and seven (5%) with methylated IKZF1. When both markers were combined, only 11 out of 144 (7.6%) controls became positive. An increasing level of methylated DNA was found to correlate with advanced stage of colorectal cancer. A combination of these two methylated DNA biomarkers therefore improved the detection rate of colorectal cancer, with little change in specificity.

DNA Methylation Biomarkers for Therapy of Colorectal Cancer

Ouchi et al. studied genome-wide methylation status in two groups of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer which expressed wild-type KRAS, and their response to anti-EGFR therapy (33). Paraffin-embedded tumour specimens were used for this study. There were 45 patients in the first group and 52 in the second group. Each group was divided into highly-methylated colorectal cancer (HMCC) and low-methylated colorectal cancer (LMCC) by unsupervised clustering analyses. The clinical outcome in both groups was significantly better in the LMCC subgroup than the HMCC subgroup (response rate: 35.7% vs. 6.3%, p=0.03; disease control rate: 75% vs. 31.3%, p=0.005; hazard ratio for progression-free survival=0.27; 95% CI=0.13-0.57, p<0.001 and overall survival=0.19; 95% CI=0.06-0.54, p<0.001). Genome-wide methylation status was, therefore, a predictive marker for both progression-free and overall survival.

Other markers for resistance to treatment with 5-FU, irinotecan and oxaliplatin include hypermethylation of the gene for transcription factor AP-2 epsilon (34) and SPARC coding for the matricellular protein osteonectin (35).

DNA Methylation Biomarkers for Prognosis of Colorectal Cancer

Methylated DNA in tissues. There is conflicting evidence for the prognostic value of O(6)-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) methylation in colorectal cancer. Li et al. performed a meta-analysis to address this uncertainty. In this analysis, 14 studies were included after 120 articles were assessed (36). Pooled hazard ratios and odd ratios with 95% CIs were calculated using fixed- or random-effect models depending on the heterogeneity between studies. MGMT methylation was not significantly correlated with overall survival of patients with colorectal cancer. However, it was significantly increased in adenomas compared to normal tissues, confirming the adenoma–carcinoma sequence of colorectal carcinogenesis. MGMT methylation has no prognostic value in colorectal cancer.

Methylated DNA in stool. Kisiel et al. examined the presence of methylated NDRG4 and BMP3 in stool before and after colorectal resection in 22 patients and from 80 controls who had normal colonoscopy (37). The target genes were extracted from stool, treated with bisulphite and assayed by quantitative allele-specific real-time target and signal amplification. Results were dichotomised at 95% specificity cut-offs. They found that after colorectal cancer resection, levels of methylated NDRG4 and BMP3 fell significantly. In 14 out of 22 patients who had raised preoperative markers levels, 13 patients had normal range postoperatively. In one patient with a rapid rise in NDRG4 level following colon cancer resection, recurrent disease was diagnosed. These markers may be of value in postoperative surveillance.

There are other prognostic methylation biomarkers in colorectal cancer. Homeodomain-only protein X-β (HOPXB) gene-promoter methylation was found to be associated with poor prognosis in stage III colorectal cancer by analyzing cancer samples using quantitative methylation-specific PCR (38). The presence of methylation of microRNA miR-128 in metastases to lymph nodes and peritoneal metastases was correlated with a poor prognosis (39).

Recent Advances in the Understanding of the Biogenesis of MicroRNAs

miRNAs are small, single-stranded, non-coding RNAs. miRNAs suppress gene expression through their interaction with mRNA by binding with complementary sequences in the 3’ untranslated region (40). Each miRNA has the potential to interact with many different mRNAs, which in turn may be suppressed by many miRNAs. miRNAs, therefore, influence cellular functions involved in malignant transformation, angiogenesis, cell growth or inflammatory response (41).

Recent advances show that the biogenesis of miRNAs involves the transcription of primary miRNAs (pri-miRNAs) by RNA polymerase II in the nucleus. Pri-miRNAs are capped, spliced and polyadenylated (42). They are then cleaved by the microprocessor formed by the enzyme DROSHA and cofactor DGCR8, generating precursor miRNAs (pre-miRNAs) (43-46). Pre-miRNAs are translocated to the cytoplasm from the nucleus by exportin 5 (47), where they are cleaved to form miRNA duplexes consisting of a mature miRNA and a complementary passenger strand miRNA*, which is degraded (48) by the RNAse III enzyme DICER1 (44, 49). miRNA* may have an unknown function (50). The mature miRNA combines with a ribonucleoprotein effector, forming the RNA-induced silencing complex that silences genes (51) by binding with the target mRNA, causing the mRNA to degrade or to fail translation (52).

miRNA genes are located in chromosomal regions prone to damage through deletion, amplification or translocation (53, 54). Such damage may result in cancer formation. Dysregulated miRNAs may arise from a defective mechanism in miRNA biogenesis, leading to cancer development (41). miRNAs are involved in many types of cancer, including colorectal cancer, in which miRNAs may act as tumour suppressors or as oncogenes. miRNAs remain stable after prolonged storage, exposure to high or low pH levels or boiling, and are detectable in archival tissues and serum (55, 56). miRNAs can be extracted for analysis from blood, plasma, serum and various body fluids, in frozen or paraffin-embedded tissues (57). In colorectal cancer, miRNAs have been found to act as markers for diagnosis, response to therapy and prognosis.

miRNAs as Diagnostic Markers for Colorectal Cancer

miR-21 and miR-92a and have been investigated in serum in patients with colorectal cancer and adenoma (58). They were found at significantly higher levels in patients with colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma than those in healthy controls. They have lower sensitivities and specificities in stool than in serum for the detection of colorectal cancer, with a sensitivity of 71.6% and a specificity of 73.3% for miR-92a and sensitivity of 55% and a specificity of 73.3% for miR-21 in stool (59).

Serum miR-92a had an independent prognostic significance in colorectal cancer. A high miR-92a expression was correlated with poor survival (p=0.03; hazard ratio=4.36; 95% CI=1.64-11.57) (58). miR-21 is not specific to colorectal cancer and has also been found in the plasma of patients with many other cancer types (60). In order to detect colorectal cancer with more specificity, Kanaan et al. used a panel of eight plasma miRNAs (miR-532-3p, miR-331, miR-195, miR-17, miR-142-3p, miR-15b, miR-532, and miR-652) (61). These were able to identify polyps from controls. Another panel of three plasma miRNAs (miR-431, miR-15b, and miR-139-3p) was able to distinguish stage IV colorectal cancer from controls.

An miRNA, miR-135b, was found at higher levels in colorectal cancer and adenomas when compared to normal adjacent colon. In a study on stool specimens, miR-135b detected colorectal cancer with a sensitivity of 78%, advanced adenomas with 73%, and 62% in adenomas, with a specificity of 68%. There was an increase of level of miR-135b from adenomas to colorectal cancers when compared with patients with inflammatory bowel disease or healthy controls. miR-135b levels in stool decreased significantly following surgery for these colorectal neoplastic lesions. miR-135b may act as a non-invasive biomarker for early-stage colorectal cancer (62).

In another study on stool specimens, the addition of miR-106a to a faecal occult blood test increased the sensitivity of colorectal cancer detection from 60.7% to 70.9% but specificity was slightly reduced from 98.1% to 96.3% compared to testing without miR-106a. miR-106a remained stable in stool after storage for 5 days at 4°C (63).

Ahmed et al. performed global microarray expression studies on stool from 15 persons consisting of three controls and 12 with colon cancer, with three in each group of stage 0-I, stage II, stage III and stage IV (64). They found 141 miRNAs preferentially increased in expression and 61 reduced. Twenty miRNAs were selected for further study on stool specimens from 60 individuals, consisting of 20 controls, 20 with stage 0-I, 10 with stage II, five with stage III, and five with stage IV colon cancer. This showed that 12 miRNAs had raised expression in colorectal cancer (miR-7, miR-17, miR-20a, miR-21, miR-92a, miR-96, miR-106a, miR-134, miR-183, miR-196a, miR-199a-3p and miR-214). The expression of these 12 miRNAs increased with the advancing TNM stages of colon cancer. Similarly, the eight miRNAs (miR-9, miR-29b, miR-127-5p, miR-138, miR-143, miR146a, miR-222 and miR-938) with a reduced expression in colon cancer also had diminished expression with progression of TNM stage. These findings encourage the development of a chip for molecular screening of colon cancer (64).

miRNAs as Therapeutic Markers for Colorectal Cancer

Mlcochova et al. investigated miRNAs as markers for response to anti-EGFR treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with wild-type RAS, using cetuximab and panitumumab (65). Nine miRNAs with significantly different expression between responders and non-responders to cetuximab therapy were identified (p≤0.01). Further studies showed that miR-31-3p (p<0.001) and miR-31-5p (p<0.001) were strongly associated with time to progression in patients treated with cetuximab but not those treated with panitumumab.

Simmer et al. analyzed the levels of 22 miRNAs and the DICER protein in primary tumours from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line capecitabine monotherapy in the CAIRO trial of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group, and progression-free survival (66). They found an increase in median progression-free survival in patients with primary tumours with a low-level expression of miR-143, compared to those with high expression. In addition, an ion transport regulator, FXYD3, and a putative target of miR-143, also showed an association with progression-free survival.

Perez-Carbonell et al. conducted a systematic discovery and validation of miRNA biomarkers in two clinical trial cohorts of patients with colorectal cancer (67). During the ‘discovery’ phase, Affymetrix miRNA expression arrays were used to investigate stage III colorectal cancer in patients with and without recurrent cancer at 3 years (n=50 per group). All patients were treated with FOLFOX (i.e. adjuvant 5-FU and oxaliplatin). During the ‘validation’ phase, miRNAs were analyzed by quantitative RT-PCR in another cohort of 237 patients with stage II-IV colorectal cancer treated with 5-FU-based chemotherapy, and in normal colonic mucosa from 20 healthy individuals. Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyze disease recurrence, disease-free survival and overall survival. miR-320e was found to be a prognostic biomarker indicating poor clinical outcome in patients with stage III colorectal cancer treated with 5-FU-based adjuvant chemotherapy.

miRNAs as Prognostic Markers for Colorectal Cancer

miRNAs are associated with epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition during carcinogenesis. Such miRNAs might act as prognostic markers for colorectal cancer. In a three phase-study, Toiyama et al. selected miRNAs associated with metastasis by analyzing four miR-200 family members (miR-200b, miR-200c, miR-141 and miR-429) in serum from 12 patients with stage I and IV colorectal cancer (68). Candidate miRNAs were then validated in 182 patients with colorectal cancer and 24 controls. Finally, the expression of selected miRNAs was analyzed in 156 matched tumour tissues from 182 patients with colorectal cancer and in a different set of 20 colorectal cancers and their liver metastases in order to locate the source of these miRNAs. miR-200c was found at higher levels in liver metastases than in primary cancer. It was the best serum marker for metastasis, with expression levels significantly higher in stage IV compared to stage I-III colorectal cancer, in lymph nodes, in distant metastasis and prognosis. miR-200c is also an independent marker for lymph metastasis, cancer recurrence and an independent prognostic marker for colorectal cancer.

Ling et al. used miRNA microarrays to analyze primary colorectal cancer tissues from patients with and without metastasis (69). Selected miRNAs were tested in 85 colorectal specimens by quantitative real-time PCR. Metastatic activity of these miRNAs was further examined. By means of prediction algorithms, quantitative real-time PCR, western blot and luciferase assays, the targets for these miRNAs were revealed. miR-224 expression was analyzed in 449 patients in six sets of colorectal cancer cases and the Cancer Genome Atlas Network (70). It was found that in colorectal cancer, miR-224 expression rises persistently with cancer burden and microsatellite-stable status. SMAD4 was found to be a target of miR-224 and they are negatively correlated. It was concluded that miR-224 facilitates colorectal cancer metastasis by involving SMAD4. Patients whose tumours expressed a high level of miR-224 had poorer prognosis with a shorter overall survival.

Many other potential colorectal prognostic markers have been reported, for example, miR-214 (71), miR-182 (72), miR-124 (73), miR-30b (74) and miR-155 (75). Further studies are required to confirm their clinical values.

Future Role of miRNAs in Colorectal Cancer

New colorectal miRNA markers are being continuously identified (52, 57, 76, 77). These markers require further studies and validation before they can be routinely applied in the clinic. It is likely that a combination of markers rather than individual markers will be more effective when applied in the clinical setting. Standardisation of miRNA extractions from various sources and quality control will reduce variations in reported miRNA levels from different investigators, enabling more meaningful comparison of results (77). In this regard, miR-1228 has been shown to act as a stable endogenous control for circulating miRNAs (78).

Discussion

The gene expression-based CMS of colorectal cancer formulated by an international consortium of six expert groups is a significant development in the classification of colorectal cancer (5). Through this collaborative effort, the pattern of colorectal carcinogenesis, and the pathways involved, has become clearer. The classification of the four CMS brings together seemingly disparate findings of molecular events in colorectal cancer formation by different research groups. By correlating with clinical outcomes, CMS classification of colorectal cancer has provided valuable information on the clinical behaviours, prognosis, and responses to treatment of the four colorectal cancer CMS (5). A better understanding of processes involved in the carcinogenesis of these four subtypes also facilitates the identification of biomarkers and the design of targeted therapies for each subtype.

Colorectal biomarkers are being discovered at a rapid pace through research into the many processes involved in colorectal carcinogenesis by various groups. Many of these biomarkers, such as methylated DNAs and microRNAs, appear promising in small-scale studies. However, before their routine clinical application, validation with large-scale clinical trials is required. To this end, CMS classification of colorectal cancer would enable like-for-like comparisons of the treatment outcomes of different therapeutic regimes. Collaborative efforts, as illustrated by the formation of CRC Subtyping Consortium (5) in the subtyping of colorectal cancer serve as a model for collaboration between groups in colorectal cancer research. Such collaborations would accelerate advances in many areas to bring laboratory research into the clinical arena more readily and quickly.

Anti-EGFR therapies demonstrate the value of applying biomarkers in ‘precision medicine’ in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (17). Experience gained from many clinical trials continues to refine the optimal use of anti-EGFR treatment to obtain maximal therapeutic effects in patients with the best-fit molecular profile for such therapies. However, other promising markers such as BRAF, PIK3CA, PTEN and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) require further elucidation. Some of these markers are currently being investigated in FOCUS4, a stratified randomised controlled trial based in the UK for advanced inoperable colorectal cancer, started in 2014. The cohorts included in this trial are: i: BRAF-mutant tumours; ii: PIK3CA-mutant tumours/PTEN loss; iii: KRAS- or NRAS-mutant tumours; iv: EGFR-dependent (BRAF, PIK3CA, KRAS, NRAS wild-type) tumours; and v: non-classified type. It aims to register 2,400 patients and randomise 1,536 patients over 4-5 years (www.focus4trial.org).

The use of aberrant methylated DNAs or miRNAs offers opportunities to screen, diagnose, follow-up after resection, or to act as prognostic markers by non-invasive means through testing blood, serum, plasma, or stool specimens for colorectal cancer. It is likely that a panel of markers is needed to improve detection rates. This is illustrated by the adoption of KRAS mutations, aberrant NDGR4 and BMP3 methylation and β-actin in the population screening of colorectal cancer (29). The stability and extractability of miRNAs under different conditions and temperature, in body fluid, blood, stool, fresh and frozen tissues, and in archival paraffin-embedded materials (55-57) makes them ideal candidates as biomarkers over less stable ones.

Novel biomarkers are also being investigated. Hamm et al. reported that circulating monocytes are plastic cells (79). They respond to soluble factors released by colorectal cancer. This monocyte signature, expressed early in carcinogenesis, is maintained as the cancer progresses. It was specific for the monocytic fraction of mononuclear cells. This process was reversible as the modified genes returned to normal expression following successful treatment of the cancer. This opens the possibility of using such tumour-educating circulating monocytes for diagnosis and follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer.

  • Received January 18, 2016.
  • Revision received February 19, 2016.
  • Accepted February 22, 2016.
  • Copyright© 2016 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Ferlay J,
    2. Soerjomataram I,
    3. Dikshit R,
    4. Eser S,
    5. Mathers C,
    6. Rebelo M,
    7. Parkin DM,
    8. Forman D,
    9. Bray F
    : Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136: E359-386, 2015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Coppedè F,
    2. Lopomo A,
    3. Spisni R,
    4. Migliore L
    : Genetic and epigenetic biomarkers for diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 20: 943-956, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Fearon ER,
    2. Vogelstein B
    : A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell 61: 759-767, 1990.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Grady WM,
    2. Pritchard CC
    : Molecular alterations and biomarkers in colorectal cancer. Toxicol Pathol 42: 124-139, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Guinney J,
    2. Dienstmann R,
    3. Wang X,
    4. de Reynies A,
    5. Schlicker A,
    6. Soneson C,
    7. Marisa L,
    8. Roepman P,
    9. Nyamundanda G,
    10. Angelino P,
    11. Bot BM,
    12. Morris JS,
    13. Simon IM,
    14. Gerster S,
    15. Fessler E,
    16. De Sousa E,
    17. Melo F,
    18. Missiaglia E,
    19. Ramay H,
    20. Barras D,
    21. Homicsko K,
    22. Maru D,
    23. Manyam GC,
    24. Broom B,
    25. Boige V,
    26. Perez-Villamil B,
    27. Laderas T,
    28. Salazar R,
    29. Gray JW,
    30. Hanahan D,
    31. Tabernero J,
    32. Bernards R,
    33. Friend SH,
    34. Laurent-Puig P,
    35. Medema JP,
    36. Sadanandam A,
    37. Wessels L,
    38. Delorenzi M,
    39. Kopetz S,
    40. Vermeulen L,
    41. Tejpar S
    : The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer. Nat Med 21: 1350-1356, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Llosa NJ,
    2. Cruise M,
    3. Tam A,
    4. Wicks EC,
    5. Hechenbleikner EM,
    6. Taube JM,
    7. Blosser RL,
    8. Fan H,
    9. Wang H,
    10. Luber BS,
    11. Zhang M,
    12. Papadopoulos N,
    13. Kinzler KW,
    14. Vogelstein B,
    15. Sears CL,
    16. Anders RA,
    17. Pardoll DM,
    18. Housseau F
    : The vigorous immune microenvironment of microsatellite instable colon cancer is balanced by multiple counter-inhibitory checkpoints. Cancer Discov 5: 43-51, 2015.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Le DT,
    2. Uram JN,
    3. Wang H,
    4. Bartlett BR,
    5. Kemberling H,
    6. Eyring AD,
    7. Skora AD,
    8. Luber BS,
    9. Azad NS,
    10. Laheru D,
    11. Biedrzycki B,
    12. Donehower RC,
    13. Zaheer A,
    14. Fisher GA,
    15. Crocenzi TS,
    16. Lee JJ,
    17. Duffy SM,
    18. Goldberg RM,
    19. de la Chapelle A,
    20. Koshiji M,
    21. Bhaijee F,
    22. Huebner T,
    23. Hruban RH,
    24. Wood LD,
    25. Cuka N,
    26. Pardoll DM,
    27. Papadopoulos N,
    28. Kinzler KW,
    29. Zhou S,
    30. Cornish TC,
    31. Taube JM,
    32. Anders RA,
    33. Eshleman JR,
    34. Vogelstein B,
    35. Diaz LA Jr.
    : PD-1 Blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N Engl J Med 372: 2509-2520, 2015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Labianca R,
    2. Nordlinger B,
    3. Beretta GD,
    4. Mosconi S,
    5. Mandala M,
    6. Cervantes A,
    7. Arnold D,
    8. ESMO Guidelines Working Group
    : Early colon cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 24(Suppl 6): vi64-72, 2013.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. de Gramont A,
    2. Figer A,
    3. Seymour M,
    4. Homerin M,
    5. Hmissi A,
    6. Cassidy J,
    7. Boni C,
    8. Cortes-Funes H,
    9. Cervantes A,
    10. Freyer G,
    11. Papamichael D,
    12. Le Bail N,
    13. Louvet C,
    14. Hendler D,
    15. de Braud F,
    16. Wilson C,
    17. Morvan F,
    18. Bonetti A
    : Leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 18: 2938-2947, 2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Grothey A,
    2. Sargent D,
    3. Goldberg RM,
    4. Schmoll HJ
    : Survival of patients with advanced colorectal cancer improves with the availability of fluorouracil-leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin in the course of treatment. J Clin Oncol 22: 1209-1214, 2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Allegra CJ,
    2. Jessup JM,
    3. Somerfield MR,
    4. Hamilton SR,
    5. Hammond EH,
    6. Hayes DF,
    7. McAllister PK,
    8. Morton RF,
    9. Schilsky RL
    : American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. J Clin Oncol 27: 2091-2096, 2009.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Lievre A,
    2. Bachet JB,
    3. Boige V,
    4. Cayre A,
    5. Le Corre D,
    6. Buc E,
    7. Ychou M,
    8. Bouche O,
    9. Landi B,
    10. Louvet C,
    11. Andre T,
    12. Bibeau F,
    13. Diebold MD,
    14. Rougier P,
    15. Ducreux M,
    16. Tomasic G,
    17. Emile JF,
    18. Penault-Llorca F,
    19. Laurent-Puig P
    : KRAS mutations as an independent prognostic factor in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. J Clin Oncol 26: 374-379, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Amado RG,
    2. Wolf M,
    3. Peeters M,
    4. Van Cutsem E,
    5. Siena S,
    6. Freeman DJ,
    7. Juan T,
    8. Sikorski R,
    9. Suggs S,
    10. Radinsky R,
    11. Patterson SD,
    12. Chang DD
    : Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 26: 1626-1634, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. De Roock W,
    2. Claes B,
    3. Bernasconi D,
    4. De Schutter J,
    5. Biesmans B,
    6. Fountzilas G,
    7. Kalogeras KT,
    8. Kotoula V,
    9. Papamichael D,
    10. Laurent-Puig P,
    11. Penault-Llorca F,
    12. Rougier P,
    13. Vincenzi B,
    14. Santini D,
    15. Tonini G,
    16. Cappuzzo F,
    17. Frattini M,
    18. Molinari F,
    19. Saletti P,
    20. De Dosso S,
    21. Martini M,
    22. Bardelli A,
    23. Siena S,
    24. Sartore-Bianchi A,
    25. Tabernero J,
    26. Macarulla T,
    27. Di Fiore F,
    28. Gangloff AO,
    29. Ciardiello F,
    30. Pfeiffer P,
    31. Qvortrup C,
    32. Hansen TP,
    33. Van Cutsem E,
    34. Piessevaux H,
    35. Lambrechts D,
    36. Delorenzi M,
    37. Tejpar S
    : Effects of KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab plus chemotherapy in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective consortium analysis. Lancet Oncol 11: 753-762, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Tejpar S,
    2. Piessevaux H
    : Personalized medicine in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents: a future opportunity?. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 10(Suppl 1): 2-10, 2014.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Van Cutsem E,
    2. Lenz HJ,
    3. Kohne CH,
    4. Heinemann V,
    5. Tejpar S,
    6. Melezinek I,
    7. Beier F,
    8. Stroh C,
    9. Rougier P,
    10. van Krieken JH,
    11. Ciardiello F
    : Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan plus cetuximab treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 33: 692-700, 2015.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Tran NH,
    2. Cavalcante LL,
    3. Lubner SJ,
    4. Mulkerin DL,
    5. LoConte NK,
    6. Clipson L,
    7. Matkowskyj KA,
    8. Deming DA
    : Precision medicine in colorectal cancer: the molecular profile alters treatment strategies. Ther Adv Med Oncol 7: 252-262, 2015.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. ↵
    1. Davies H,
    2. Bignell GR,
    3. Cox C,
    4. Stephens P,
    5. Edkins S,
    6. Clegg S,
    7. Teague J,
    8. Woffendin H,
    9. Garnett MJ,
    10. Bottomley W,
    11. Davis N,
    12. Dicks E,
    13. Ewing R,
    14. Floyd Y,
    15. Gray K,
    16. Hall S,
    17. Hawes R,
    18. Hughes J,
    19. Kosmidou V,
    20. Menzies A,
    21. Mould C,
    22. Parker A,
    23. Stevens C,
    24. Watt S,
    25. Hooper S,
    26. Wilson R,
    27. Jayatilake H,
    28. Gusterson BA,
    29. Cooper C,
    30. Shipley J,
    31. Hargrave D,
    32. Pritchard-Jones K,
    33. Maitland N,
    34. Chenevix-Trench G,
    35. Riggins GJ,
    36. Bigner DD,
    37. Palmieri G,
    38. Cossu A,
    39. Flanagan A,
    40. Nicholson A,
    41. Ho JW,
    42. Leung SY,
    43. Yuen ST,
    44. Weber BL,
    45. Seigler HF,
    46. Darrow TL,
    47. Paterson H,
    48. Marais R,
    49. Marshall CJ,
    50. Wooster R,
    51. Stratton MR,
    52. Futreal PA
    : Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature 417: 949-954, 2002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Van Cutsem E,
    2. Kohne CH,
    3. Lang I,
    4. Folprecht G,
    5. Nowacki MP,
    6. Cascinu S,
    7. Shchepotin I,
    8. Maurel J,
    9. Cunningham D,
    10. Tejpar S,
    11. Schlichting M,
    12. Zubel A,
    13. Celik I,
    14. Rougier P,
    15. Ciardiello F
    : Cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: updated analysis of overall survival according to tumor KRAS and BRAF mutation status. J Clin Oncol 29: 2011-2019, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Vivanco I,
    2. Sawyers CL
    : The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase AKT pathway in human cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2: 489-501, 2002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Yang ZY,
    2. Wu XY,
    3. Huang YF,
    4. Di MY,
    5. Zheng DY,
    6. Chen JZ,
    7. Ding H,
    8. Mao C,
    9. Tang JL
    : Promising biomarkers for predicting the outcomes of patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 133: 1914-1925, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Huang L,
    2. Liu Z,
    3. Deng D,
    4. Tan A,
    5. Liao M,
    6. Mo Z,
    7. Yang X
    : Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody-based therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of the effect of PIK3CA mutations in KRAS wild-type patients. Arch Med Sci 10: 1-9, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Bronte G,
    2. Silvestris N,
    3. Castiglia M,
    4. Galvano A,
    5. Passiglia F,
    6. Sortino G,
    7. Cicero G,
    8. Rolfo C,
    9. Peeters M,
    10. Bazan V,
    11. Fanale D,
    12. Giordano A,
    13. Russo A
    : New findings on primary and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: Do all roads lead to RAS?. Oncotarget 6: 24780-24796, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Ducasse M,
    2. Brown MA
    : Epigenetic aberrations and cancer. Mol Cancer 5: 60, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Hermann A,
    2. Gowher H,
    3. Jeltsch A
    : Biochemistry and biology of mammalian DNA methyltransferases. Cell Mol Life Sci 61: 2571-2587, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Lao VV,
    2. Grady WM
    : Epigenetics and colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 8: 686-700, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Goel A,
    2. Boland CR
    : Epigenetics of colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 143: 1442-1460.e1, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Toyota M,
    2. Ahuja N,
    3. Ohe-Toyota M,
    4. Herman JG,
    5. Baylin SB,
    6. Issa JP
    : CpG island methylator phenotype in colorectal cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96: 8681-8686, 1999.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Imperiale TF,
    2. Ransohoff DF,
    3. Itzkowitz SH,
    4. Levin TR,
    5. Lavin P,
    6. Lidgard GP,
    7. Ahlquist DA,
    8. Berger BM
    : Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 370: 1287-1297, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Zhang H,
    2. Qi J,
    3. Wu YQ,
    4. Zhang P,
    5. Jiang J,
    6. Wang QX,
    7. Zhu YQ
    : Accuracy of early detection of colorectal tumours by stool methylation markers: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 20: 14040-14050, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Church TR,
    2. Wandell M,
    3. Lofton-Day C,
    4. Mongin SJ,
    5. Burger M,
    6. Payne SR,
    7. Castanos-Velez E,
    8. Blumenstein BA,
    9. Rosch T,
    10. Osborn N,
    11. Snover D,
    12. Day RW,
    13. Ransohoff DF,
    14. PRESEPT Clinical Study Steering Committee, Investigators and Study Team
    : Prospective evaluation of methylated SEPT9 in plasma for detection of asymptomatic colorectal cancer. Gut 63: 317-325, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Pedersen SK,
    2. Baker RT,
    3. McEvoy A,
    4. Murray DH,
    5. Thomas M,
    6. Molloy PL,
    7. Mitchell S,
    8. Lockett T,
    9. Young GP,
    10. LaPointe LC
    : A two-gene blood test for methylated DNA sensitive for colorectal cancer. PLoS One 10: e0125041, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Ouchi K,
    2. Takahashi S,
    3. Yamada Y,
    4. Tsuji S,
    5. Tatsuno K,
    6. Takahashi H,
    7. Takahashi N,
    8. Takahashi M,
    9. Shimodaira H,
    10. Aburatani H,
    11. Ishioka C
    : DNA methylation status as a biomarker of anti-EGFR treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Sci 106(12): 1722-9, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Ebert MP,
    2. Tanzer M,
    3. Balluff B,
    4. Burgermeister E,
    5. Kretzschmar AK,
    6. Hughes DJ,
    7. Tetzner R,
    8. Lofton-Day C,
    9. Rosenberg R,
    10. Reinacher-Schick AC,
    11. Schulmann K,
    12. Tannapfel A,
    13. Hofheinz R,
    14. Rocken C,
    15. Keller G,
    16. Langer R,
    17. Specht K,
    18. Porschen R,
    19. Stohlmacher-Williams J,
    20. Schuster T,
    21. Strobel P,
    22. Schmid RM
    : TFAP2E-DKK4 and chemoresistance in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 366: 44-53, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Cheetham S,
    2. Tang MJ,
    3. Mesak F,
    4. Kennecke H,
    5. Owen D,
    6. Tai IT
    : SPARC promoter hypermethylation in colorectal cancers can be reversed by 5-aza-2’deoxycytidine to increase SPARC expression and improve therapy response. Br J Cancer 98: 1810-1819, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Li Y,
    2. Lyu Z,
    3. Zhao L,
    4. Cheng H,
    5. Zhu D,
    6. Gao Y,
    7. Shang X,
    8. Shi H
    : Prognostic value of MGMT methylation in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis and literature review. Tumour Biol 36: 1595-1601, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Kisiel JB,
    2. Yab TC,
    3. Taylor WR,
    4. Mahoney DW,
    5. Ahlquist DA
    : Stool methylated DNA markers decrease following colorectal cancer resection – implications for surveillance. Dig Dis Sci 59: 1764-1767, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Katoh H,
    2. Yamashita K,
    3. Waraya M,
    4. Margalit O,
    5. Ooki A,
    6. Tamaki H,
    7. Sakagami H,
    8. Kokubo K,
    9. Sidransky D,
    10. Watanabe M
    : Epigenetic silencing of HOPX promotes cancer progression in colorectal cancer. Neoplasia 14: 559-571, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Takahashi Y,
    2. Iwaya T,
    3. Sawada G,
    4. Kurashige J,
    5. Matsumura T,
    6. Uchi R,
    7. Ueo H,
    8. Takano Y,
    9. Eguchi H,
    10. Sudo T,
    11. Sugimachi K,
    12. Yamamoto H,
    13. Doki Y,
    14. Mori M,
    15. Mimori K
    : Up-regulation of NEK2 by microRNA-128 methylation is associated with poor prognosis in colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 21: 205-212, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Bartel DP
    : MicroRNAs: genomics, biogenesis, mechanism, and function. Cell 116: 281-297, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Lin S,
    2. Gregory RI
    : MicroRNA biogenesis pathways in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 15: 321-333, 2015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Lee Y,
    2. Kim M,
    3. Han J,
    4. Yeom KH,
    5. Lee S,
    6. Baek SH,
    7. Kim VN
    : MicroRNA genes are transcribed by RNA polymerase II. EMBO J 23: 4051-4060, 2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Gregory RI,
    2. Yan KP,
    3. Amuthan G,
    4. Chendrimada T,
    5. Doratotaj B,
    6. Cooch N,
    7. Shiekhattar R
    : The Microprocessor complex mediates the genesis of microRNAs. Nature 432: 235-240, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Denli AM,
    2. Tops BB,
    3. Plasterk RH,
    4. Ketting RF,
    5. Hannon GJ
    : Processing of primary microRNAs by the Microprocessor complex. Nature 432: 231-235, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lee Y,
    2. Ahn C,
    3. Han J,
    4. Choi H,
    5. Kim J,
    6. Yim J,
    7. Lee J,
    8. Provost P,
    9. Radmark O,
    10. Kim S,
    11. Kim VN
    : The nuclear RNase III Drosha initiates microRNA processing. Nature 425: 415-419, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Han J,
    2. Lee Y,
    3. Yeom KH,
    4. Kim YK,
    5. Jin H,
    6. Kim VN
    : The DROSHA–DGCR8 complex in primary microRNA processing. Genes Dev 18: 3016-3027, 2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    1. Bohnsack MT,
    2. Czaplinski K,
    3. Gorlich D
    : Exportin 5 is a RanGTP-dependent dsRNA-binding protein that mediates nuclear export of pre-miRNAs. RNA 10: 185-191, 2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Iorio MV,
    2. Croce CM
    : MicroRNA dysregulation in cancer: diagnostics, monitoring and therapeutics. A comprehensive review. EMBO Mol Med 4: 143-159, 2012.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. Park JE,
    2. Heo I,
    3. Tian Y,
    4. Simanshu DK,
    5. Chang H,
    6. Jee D,
    7. Patel DJ,
    8. Kim VN
    : Dicer recognizes the 5’ end of RNA for efficient and accurate processing. Nature 475: 201-205, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    1. Bhayani MK,
    2. Calin GA,
    3. Lai SY
    : Functional relevance of miRNA sequences in human disease. Mutat Res 731: 14-19, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Sun W,
    2. Julie Li YS,
    3. Huang HD,
    4. Shyy JY,
    5. Chien S
    : microRNA: a master regulator of cellular processes for bioengineering systems. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 12: 1-27, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Hollis M,
    2. Nair K,
    3. Vyas A,
    4. Chaturvedi LS,
    5. Gambhir S,
    6. Vyas D
    : MicroRNAs potential utility in colon cancer: Early detection, prognosis, and chemosensitivity. World J Gastroenterol 21: 8284-8292, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Ma L,
    2. Teruya-Feldstein J,
    3. Weinberg RA
    : Tumour invasion and metastasis initiated by microRNA-10b in breast cancer. Nature 449: 682-688, 2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Calin GA,
    2. Sevignani C,
    3. Dumitru CD,
    4. Hyslop T,
    5. Noch E,
    6. Yendamuri S,
    7. Shimizu M,
    8. Rattan S,
    9. Bullrich F,
    10. Negrini M,
    11. Croce CM
    : Human microRNA genes are frequently located at fragile sites and genomic regions involved in cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 2999-3004, 2004.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  53. ↵
    1. Mitchell PS,
    2. Parkin RK,
    3. Kroh EM,
    4. Fritz BR,
    5. Wyman SK,
    6. Pogosova-Agadjanyan EL,
    7. Peterson A,
    8. Noteboom J,
    9. O'Briant KC,
    10. Allen A,
    11. Lin DW,
    12. Urban N,
    13. Drescher CW,
    14. Knudsen BS,
    15. Stirewalt DL,
    16. Gentleman R,
    17. Vessella RL,
    18. Nelson PS,
    19. Martin DB,
    20. Tewari M
    : Circulating microRNAs as stable blood-based markers for cancer detection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 10513-10518, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. ↵
    1. Chen X,
    2. Ba Y,
    3. Ma L,
    4. Cai X,
    5. Yin Y,
    6. Wang K,
    7. Guo J,
    8. Zhang Y,
    9. Chen J,
    10. Guo X,
    11. Li Q,
    12. Li X,
    13. Wang W,
    14. Zhang Y,
    15. Wang J,
    16. Jiang X,
    17. Xiang Y,
    18. Xu C,
    19. Zheng P,
    20. Zhang J,
    21. Li R,
    22. Zhang H,
    23. Shang X,
    24. Gong T,
    25. Ning G,
    26. Wang J,
    27. Zen K,
    28. Zhang J,
    29. Zhang CY
    : Characterization of microRNAs in serum: a novel class of biomarkers for diagnosis of cancer and other diseases. Cell Res 18: 997-1006, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Xuan Y,
    2. Yang H,
    3. Zhao L,
    4. Lau WB,
    5. Lau B,
    6. Ren N,
    7. Hu Y,
    8. Yi T,
    9. Zhao X,
    10. Zhou S,
    11. Wei Y
    : MicroRNAs in colorectal cancer: small molecules with big functions. Cancer Lett 360: 89-105, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Liu GH,
    2. Zhou ZG,
    3. Chen R,
    4. Wang MJ,
    5. Zhou B,
    6. Li Y,
    7. Sun XF
    : Serum miR-21 and miR-92a as biomarkers in the diagnosis and prognosis of colorectal cancer. Tumour Biol 34: 2175-2181, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    1. Wu CW,
    2. Ng SS,
    3. Dong YJ,
    4. Ng SC,
    5. Leung WW,
    6. Lee CW,
    7. Wong YN,
    8. Chan FK,
    9. Yu J,
    10. Sung JJ
    : Detection of miR-92a and miR-21 in stool samples as potential screening biomarkers for colorectal cancer and polyps. Gut 61: 739-745, 2012.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Kanaan Z,
    2. Rai SN,
    3. Eichenberger MR,
    4. Roberts H,
    5. Keskey B,
    6. Pan J,
    7. Galandiuk S
    : Plasma miR-21: a potential diagnostic marker of colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 256: 544-551, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Kanaan Z,
    2. Roberts H,
    3. Eichenberger MR,
    4. Billeter A,
    5. Ocheretner G,
    6. Pan J,
    7. Rai SN,
    8. Jorden J,
    9. Williford A,
    10. Galandiuk S
    : A plasma microRNA panel for detection of colorectal adenomas: a step toward more precise screening for colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 258: 400-408, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  60. ↵
    1. Wu CW,
    2. Ng SC,
    3. Dong Y,
    4. Tian L,
    5. Ng SS,
    6. Leung WW,
    7. Law WT,
    8. Yau TO,
    9. Chan FK,
    10. Sung JJ,
    11. Yu J
    : Identification of microRNA-135b in stool as a potential noninvasive biomarker for colorectal cancer and adenoma. Clin Cancer Res 20: 2994-3002, 2014.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    1. Koga Y,
    2. Yamazaki N,
    3. Yamamoto Y,
    4. Yamamoto S,
    5. Saito N,
    6. Kakugawa Y,
    7. Otake Y,
    8. Matsumoto M,
    9. Matsumura Y
    : Fecal miR-106a is a useful marker for colorectal cancer patients with false-negative results in immunochemical fecal occult blood test. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 22: 1844-1852, 2013.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  62. ↵
    1. Ahmed FE,
    2. Ahmed NC,
    3. Vos PW,
    4. Bonnerup C,
    5. Atkins JN,
    6. Casey M,
    7. Nuovo GJ,
    8. Naziri W,
    9. Wiley JE,
    10. Mota H,
    11. Allison RR
    : Diagnostic microRNA markers to screen for sporadic human colon cancer in stool: I. Proof of principle. Cancer Genomics Proteomics 10: 93-113, 2013.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. ↵
    1. Mlcochova J,
    2. Faltejskova-Vychytilova P,
    3. Ferracin M,
    4. Zagatti B,
    5. Radova L,
    6. Svoboda M,
    7. Nemecek R,
    8. John S,
    9. Kiss I,
    10. Vyzula R,
    11. Negrini M,
    12. Slaby O
    : MicroRNA expression profiling identifies miR-31-5p/3p as associated with time to progression in wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. Oncotarget 17; 6(36): 38695-704, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Simmer F,
    2. Venderbosch S,
    3. Dijkstra JR,
    4. Vink-Borger EM,
    5. Faber C,
    6. Mekenkamp LJ,
    7. Koopman M,
    8. De Haan AF,
    9. Punt CJ,
    10. Nagtegaal ID
    : MicroRNA-143 is a putative predictive factor for the response to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncotarget 6: 22996-23007, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Perez-Carbonell L,
    2. Sinicrope FA,
    3. Alberts SR,
    4. Oberg AL,
    5. Balaguer F,
    6. Castells A,
    7. Boland CR,
    8. Goel A
    : miR-320e is a novel prognostic biomarker in colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 113: 83-90, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Toiyama Y,
    2. Hur K,
    3. Tanaka K,
    4. Inoue Y,
    5. Kusunoki M,
    6. Boland R,
    7. Goel A
    : Serum miRNA-200c is a novel prognostic and metastasis-predictive biomarker in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 259(4): 735-743, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Ling H,
    2. Pickard K,
    3. Ivan C,
    4. Isella C,
    5. Ikuo M,
    6. Mitter R,
    7. Spizzo R,
    8. Bullock MD,
    9. Braicu C,
    10. Pileczki V,
    11. Vincent K,
    12. Pichler M,
    13. Stiegelbauer V,
    14. Hoefler G,
    15. Almeida MI,
    16. Hsiao A,
    17. Zhang X,
    18. Primrose JN,
    19. Packham GK,
    20. Liu K,
    21. Bojja K,
    22. Gafa R,
    23. Xiao L,
    24. Rossi S,
    25. Song JH,
    26. Vannini I,
    27. Fanini F,
    28. Kopetz S,
    29. Zweidler-McKay P,
    30. Wang X,
    31. Ionescu C,
    32. Irimie A,
    33. Fabbri M,
    34. Lanza G,
    35. Hamilton SR,
    36. Berindan-Neagoe I,
    37. Medico E,
    38. Mirnezami AH,
    39. Calin GA,
    40. Nicoloso MS
    : The clinical and biological significance of miR-224 expression in colorectal cancer metastasis. Gut 0: 1-13 doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309372, 2015.
  68. ↵
    1. Cancer Genome Atlas Network
    : Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature 487: 330-337, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Chen DL,
    2. Wang ZQ,
    3. Zeng ZL,
    4. Wu WJ,
    5. Zhang DS,
    6. Luo HY,
    7. Wang F,
    8. Qiu MZ,
    9. Wang DS,
    10. Ren C,
    11. Wang FH,
    12. Chiao LJ,
    13. Pelicano H,
    14. Huang P,
    15. Li YH,
    16. Xu RH
    : Identification of microRNA-214 as a negative regulator of colorectal cancer liver metastasis by way of regulation of fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 expression. Hepatology 60: 598-609, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Liu H,
    2. Du L,
    3. Wen Z,
    4. Yang Y,
    5. Li J,
    6. Wang L,
    7. Zhang X,
    8. Liu Y,
    9. Dong Z,
    10. Li W,
    11. Zheng G,
    12. Wang C
    : Up-regulation of miR-182 expression in colorectal cancer tissues and its prognostic value. Int J Colorectal Dis 28: 697-703, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. ↵
    1. Wang MJ,
    2. Li Y,
    3. Wang R,
    4. Wang C,
    5. Yu YY,
    6. Yang L,
    7. Zhang Y,
    8. Zhou B,
    9. Zhou ZG,
    10. Sun XF
    : Down-regulation of microRNA-124 is an independent prognostic factor in patients with colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 28: 183-189, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Liao WT,
    2. Ye YP,
    3. Zhang NJ,
    4. Li TT,
    5. Wang SY,
    6. Cui YM,
    7. Qi L,
    8. Wu P,
    9. Jiao HL,
    10. Xie YJ,
    11. Zhang C,
    12. Wang JX,
    13. Ding YQ
    : MicroRNA-30b functions as a tumour suppressor in human colorectal cancer by targeting KRAS, PIK3CD and BCL2. J Pathol 232: 415-427, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Lou X,
    2. Qi X,
    3. Zhang Y,
    4. Long H,
    5. Yang J
    : Decreased expression of microRNA-625 is associated with tumor metastasis and poor prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 108: 230-235, 2013.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  74. ↵
    1. Stiegelbauer V,
    2. Perakis S,
    3. Deutsch A,
    4. Ling H,
    5. Gerger A,
    6. Pichler M
    : MicroRNAs as novel predictive biomarkers and therapeutic targets in colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 20: 11727-11735, 2014.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Ren A,
    2. Dong Y,
    3. Tsoi H,
    4. Yu J
    : Detection of miRNA as non-invasive biomarkers of colorectal cancer. Int J Mol Sci 16: 2810-2823, 2015.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Hu J,
    2. Wang Z,
    3. Liao BY,
    4. Yu L,
    5. Gao X,
    6. Lu S,
    7. Wang S,
    8. Dai Z,
    9. Zhang X,
    10. Chen Q,
    11. Qiu SJ,
    12. Wu Y,
    13. Zhu H,
    14. Fan J,
    15. Zhou J,
    16. Wang J
    : Human miR-1228 as a stable endogenous control for the quantification of circulating microRNAs in cancer patients. Int J Cancer 135: 1187-1194, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. ↵
    1. Hamm A,
    2. Prenen H,
    3. Van Delm W,
    4. Di Matteo M,
    5. Wenes M,
    6. Delamarre E,
    7. Schmidt T,
    8. Weitz J,
    9. Sarmiento R,
    10. Dezi A,
    11. Gasparini G,
    12. Rothe F,
    13. Schmitz R,
    14. D'Hoore A,
    15. Iserentant H,
    16. Hendlisz A,
    17. Mazzone M
    : Tumour-educated circulating monocytes are powerful candidate biomarkers for diagnosis and disease follow-up of colorectal cancer. Gut 0: 1-11. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308988, 2015.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 36 (3)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 36, Issue 3
March 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
13 + 0 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer
ANDREW J. YIU, CHU Y. YIU
Anticancer Research Mar 2016, 36 (3) 1093-1102;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer
ANDREW J. YIU, CHU Y. YIU
Anticancer Research Mar 2016, 36 (3) 1093-1102;
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Recent Advances in the Molecular Subtyping of Colorectal Cancer
    • Biomarkers in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer
    • DNA Methylation as a Cause of Colorectal Cancer
    • DNA Methylation Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Colorectal Cancer
    • DNA Methylation Biomarkers for Therapy of Colorectal Cancer
    • DNA Methylation Biomarkers for Prognosis of Colorectal Cancer
    • Recent Advances in the Understanding of the Biogenesis of MicroRNAs
    • miRNAs as Diagnostic Markers for Colorectal Cancer
    • miRNAs as Therapeutic Markers for Colorectal Cancer
    • miRNAs as Prognostic Markers for Colorectal Cancer
    • Future Role of miRNAs in Colorectal Cancer
    • Discussion
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte Antigen-4 (CTLA-4) Gene Polymorphism (rs3087243) Is Related to Risk and Survival in Patients With Colorectal Cancer
  • Diagnostic value in colorectal tumorous lesions of SDC2/TFPI2 methylation based on bowel subsite difference
  • Impact of Prior Bevacizumab Treatment on VEGF-A and PlGF Levels and Outcome Following Second-Line Aflibercept Treatment: Biomarker Post Hoc Analysis of the VELOUR Trial
  • Review--Measurement and Analysis of Cancer Biomarkers Based on Electrochemical Biosensors
  • Tissue micro-RNAs associated with colorectal cancer prognosis: a systematic review
  • Genetic Variants of the IL2 Gene Related to Risk and Survival in Patients With Colorectal Cancer
  • Correlation of Tumor Location to Clinical Outcomes in Colorectal Cancer: A Single-institution Retrospective Analysis
  • MiR-382 functions as tumor suppressor and chemosensitizer in colorectal cancer
  • Applications of Support Vector Machine (SVM) Learning in Cancer Genomics
  • Protein Expression and Genetic Variation of IL32 and Association with Colorectal Cancer in Swedish Patients
  • A Scoring System to Predict the Development of Bone Metastasis After Radical Resection of Colorectal Cancer
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHINA –UNITED KINGDOM CANCER (CUKC) CONFERENCE 2015 (Cardiff, Wales, UK)

  • Effective Treatment for Malignant Pleural Effusion and Ascites with Combined Therapy of Bevacizumab and Cisplatin
  • The Clinical Implications of RSK1-3 in Human Breast Cancer
  • A Novel NHERF1 Mutation in Human Breast Cancer Inactivates Inhibition by NHERF1 Protein in EGFR Signaling
Show more PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHINA –UNITED KINGDOM CANCER (CUKC) CONFERENCE 2015 (Cardiff, Wales, UK)

Reviews

  • Multimodal Treatment of Primary Advanced Ovarian Cancer
  • Integrated Treatment of Breast Cancer-related Lymphedema: A Descriptive Review of the State of the Art
  • Cytokine-based Cancer Immunotherapy: Challenges and Opportunities for IL-10
Show more Reviews

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Colorectal cancer
  • biomarkers
  • consensus molecular subtypes
  • chromosome instability (CIN)
  • microsatellite instability (MSI)
  • CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP)
  • methylated DNA
  • microRNAs
  • epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)
  • review
Anticancer Research

© 2023 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire