Are CIMP and chr16p13.2 copy-number status independent prognostic markers in Stages II and III colorectal cancer?

✍ Scribed by Claus Lindbjerg Andersen; Philippe Lamy; Torben Falck Ørntoft

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2011
• Tongue: French
• Weight: 70 KB
• Volume: 130
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0020-7136
• DOI: 10.1002/ijc.25998

✦ Synopsis

Dear Editor,

We thank Zanutto et al. for their interest and comments on our recent publication entitled ''Frequent genomic loss at chr16p13.2 is associated with poor prognosis in colorectal cancer.'' 1 In this publication, we aimed to identify and characterize recurrent copy-number alterations associated with clinical outcomes of colorectal cancer (CRC). On the basis of a thorough genome-wide analysis of >70 tumors, we found loss of chr16p13.2 to be associated with metastatic recurrence and short recurrence-free survival of Stages II and III microsatellitestable CRC. In their comment to our article, Zanutto et al. reported on the prognostic potential of another type of molecular marker, CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP). They focused specifically on Stage II tumors (n ¼ 42) and provided results indicating that CIMP-high tumors are associated with a favorable outcome. Despite being based on a small number of cases, these results are interesting and in line with previous reports addressing the prognostic potential of CIMP in CRC. 2,3 Interestingly, another report on CIMP in CRC indicated that CIMP-high tumors were associated with a low number of chromosomal abnormalities. 4 With this information in mind, one may speculate if CIMP status and chr16p13.2 copy number are somehow correlated? A study investigating this possibility would be very interesting and could also address the question as to whether the two molecular markers provide independent prognostic information. If independent, the assays of the two markers, which are both based on PCR analysis of tumor DNA, can be combined possibly yielding an even better prognostic marker.