Clinical Cancer Research Bridging the Lab and the Clinic in Cancer Medicine Tumor Immunology: New Perspectives
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
Clinical Cancer Research 13, 3892-3898, July 1, 2007. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2446
© 2007 American Association for Cancer Research
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Filipits, M.
Right arrow Articles by Pirker, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Filipits, M.
Right arrow Articles by Pirker, R.

Cancer Therapy: Clinical

Multidrug Resistance Proteins Do Not Predict Benefit of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Completely Resected Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: International Adjuvant Lung Cancer Trial Biologic Program

Martin Filipits1, Vincent Haddad3, Katharina Schmid2, Anh Huynh1, Ariane Dunant3, Fabrice André4, Elisabeth Brambilla5, Rolf Stahel6, Jean-Pierre Pignon3, Jean-Charles Soria4, Helmut H. Popper7, Thierry Le Chevalier4 and Robert Pirker1

Authors' Affiliations: 1 Department of Medicine I and 2 Department of Clinical Pathology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; 3 Biostatistics and Epidemiology Unit and 4 Department of Medicine, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France; 5 Institut National de la Sante et de la Recherche Medicale U823, Université Joseph Fourier, Department of Pathology, Grenoble Hospital, Grenoble, France; 6 Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; and 7 Institute of Pathology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria

Requests for reprints: Martin Filipits, Institute of Cancer Research, Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Borschkegasse 8a, A-1090 Vienna, Austria. Phone: 43-1-4277-65237; Fax: 43-1-4277-65196; E-mail: martin.filipits{at}meduniwien.ac.at.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1. The IALT-Bio...
 References
 
Purpose: The purpose of our study was to determine whether multidrug resistance proteins (MRP) are of prognostic and/or predictive value in patients who were enrolled into the International Adjuvant Lung Cancer Trial (IALT).

Experimental Design: Expression of MRP1 and MRP2 was immunohistochemically assessed in tumor specimens obtained from 782 IALT patients. Prognostic and predictive analyses were based on Cox models adjusted for clinical and pathologic variables.

Results: MRP1 expression was considered positive in 364 (47%) patients and MRP2 expression in 313 (40%) patients. MRP2-positive patients had a significantly shorter overall survival than MRP2-negative patients in the total patient population [adjusted hazard ratio for death, 1.37; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.09-1.72; P = 0.007]. There was no significant association between MRP1 expression and overall survival. Neither MRP1 nor MRP2 predicted response to adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Conclusions: MRP2 expression is an independent prognostic factor in patients with completely resected non–small cell lung cancer but neither MRP1 nor MRP2 was of predictive value in patients enrolled into the IALT.

Several randomized trials showed that adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy improves survival of patients with completely resected non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC; refs. 1–3). The International Adjuvant Lung Cancer Trial (IALT), the largest of these trials, randomly assigned 1,867 patients either to receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy or to be observed only (1). A pooled analysis of the five largest trials recently confirmed a survival benefit of absolute 5% by adjuvant chemotherapy (4). Thus, adjuvant chemotherapy is now considered as standard treatment for selected patients with completely resected NSCLC, particularly those with stage II and III disease. Sex, histologic type, and other clinical variables do not allow selecting those patients who benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (1, 4). Therefore, molecular markers should be studied for their potential predictive value.

Of particular interest in this regard are transport proteins, such as those belonging to the ATP-binding cassette multidrug resistance proteins (MRP; refs. 5–7). Overexpression of MRP1 or MRP2 in tumor cells confers resistance to various anticancer drugs, including anthracyclines, Vinca alkaloids, and epipodophyllotoxins. MRP1 and MRP2 have similar substrate specificity but, in contrast to MRP1, MRP2 also mediates resistance to cisplatin (7).

The purpose of our study, which is part of the IALT biologic program (IALT-Bio), was to determine whether MRP1 and MRP2 are of prognostic and/or predictive value in NSCLC patients who were enrolled into the IALT.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1. The IALT-Bio...
 References
 
Patients and study design. We retrospectively collected paraffin-embedded tumor blocks from 867 patients, of which 783 were of sufficient quality for further analyses (8). Twenty-eight centers in 14 countries contributed samples (see Appendix 1). Approval was obtained by local Institutional Review Boards according to the legal regulations in each participating country. All tumor specimens were obtained at the time of surgery.

Immunohistochemistry. Immunohistochemical analyses were carried out in a single laboratory (Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria) and done as described previously (9).

Tissue sections were deparaffinized and rehydrated. After heat-induced epitope retrieval in 10 mmol/L citrate buffer (pH 6.0; only for MRP2), slides were incubated for 90 min at room temperature with either the monoclonal antibody for MRP1 (clone MRPr1; 1:100 dilution; Alexis) or MRP2 (clone M2III-6; 1:100 dilution; Alexis). Antibody binding was detected by the avidin-biotin-peroxidase method (MRP1) or by means of the UltraVision LP detection system (MRP2; Lab Vision Corp.) according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Color development was done with 3,3'-diaminobenzidine (Dako). The slides were counterstained with Mayer's hematoxylin and mounted.

Positive controls were NSCLC samples known to express the given antigen. Immunostaining was examined by an experienced lung pathologist (K.S.) who was blinded to the clinical outcome of the patients. Immunostaining was classified based on staining intensity and percentage of stained tumor cells. Membranous and cytoplasmatic staining of tumor cells was scored as positive. Staining intensity was determined as 0 (absent), 1 (weak), 2 (moderate), and 3 (strong). The median values of the percentages of MRP1- or MRP2-positive tumor cells were prospectively chosen as cutoff points to classify marker-positive and marker-negative tumors. Choosing the median as cutoff point guarantees objectivity because it is not determined a posteriori as an "optimal" cutoff point. Therefore, one does not need any P value adjustment and questionable bias correction. Furthermore, maximal power for prognostic and predictive studies is achieved when the marker is equally distributed (10).

Statistical analysis. Assuming that the effect of chemotherapy is different between equally sized marker-positive and marker-negative patients, the estimated power for 800 patients is 66% for detecting a 20% absolute difference in 5-year survival benefit with a two-sided type I error of 1% (11). For the prognostic analysis, the power was 99% to detect a 20% absolute difference in 5-year survival between marker-positive and marker-negative patients.

To study selection bias within the IALT-Bio participating centers, the prerandomization characteristics of patients for whom tumor blocks were available or patients without blocks were compared using {chi}2 tests stratified by center, and their overall survival using a Cox model. Baseline data according to the biomarker status were compared using univariate analyses with {chi}2 tests and multivariate logistic models.

Survival rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The prognostic values of the biomarker status and chemotherapy on survival were studied using the Cox model. As in the IALT analysis, the Cox model included every factor used in the stratified randomization (center, tumor stage, and type of surgery) plus clinical and histologic prognostic factors (age, sex, WHO performance status, nodal status, lymphoid infiltration, and the revised histopathologic type). All other factors that were statistically related to the biomarker status in the multivariate logistic model (P < 0.05) were added to the survival Cox model. The predictive value of the biomarkers was studied by testing the interaction between the biomarker status and the attributed treatment (chemotherapy or no chemotherapy) in the same Cox model. Sensitivity analyses using Cox models with a lower number of adjustment factors were done and the results were similar. Therefore, only results corresponding to the above model are presented. All reported P values were two sided. In the statistical analysis plan, P values of <0.01 were considered statistically significant to limit the risk of false-positive results. All analyses were done using Statistical Analysis System software, version 8.2 (SAS Institute, Inc.).


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 Appendix 1. The IALT-Bio...
 References
 
We did the immunohistochemical analyses of MRP1 and MRP2 in tumor sections of 783 patients. In one case, staining was not evaluable for both markers. Therefore, 782 patients remained in the study and all further statistical analyses were based on these patients. These patients were also representative of the participating center population because the prerandomization characteristics and overall survival of the patients who were included into the present study did not differ from that of cases of the same centers that were not included (data not shown).

Immunostaining of MRP1 and MRP2 was both membranous and cytoplasmatic and ranged from 0% to 100% (Fig. 1 ). Histograms of the percentages of stained cells by staining intensity of MRP1 or MRP2 are shown in Fig. 1. The median value of the percentages of stained tumor cells was 20% for MRP1. In case of MRP2, 60% of the samples did not show any immunostaining of tumor cells and were therefore classified as negative. MRP1 expression was considered positive (>20% MRP1-positive tumor cells) in 364 (47%) and negative (≤20% MRP1-positive tumor cells) in 418 (53%) patients. Likewise, MRP2 expression was considered positive (>0% MRP2-positive tumor cells) in 313 (40%) and negative (0% MRP2-positive tumor cells) in 469 (60%) patients. The association of MRP1 or MRP2 with clinical variables is shown in Table 1 . MRP1 expression was more frequently positive in patients with lymph node involvement (P = 0.002), tumor stage II and III (P < 0.001), and poor performance status (P < 0.001) but was not significantly associated with any other clinical variable listed in Table 1. MRP2 positivity correlated significantly with adenocarcinomas (P < 0.001) and performance status of 0 (P = 0.007).


Figure 1
View larger version (69K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 1. MRP1 and MRP2 immunostaining. A, MRP2-negative NSCLC. B, MRP2-positive NSCLC. Bar, 100 µm. Percentages of stained tumor cells by staining intensity of MRP1 (C) or MRP2 (D).

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Patient and tumor characteristics

 
Next, we compared MRP1 or MRP2 expression simultaneously with other variables (age, sex, tumor status, nodal status, pathologic tumor stage, histologic type, performance status, and lymphoid infiltration) in multivariate logistic models. In these analyses, MRP1 positivity was associated with stage II and III (P < 0.001), poor performance status (P = 0.002), and middle-aged patients (P = 0.04). Patients with adenocarcinomas (P < 0.001), performance status of 0 (P = 0.02), and vascular invasion (P = 0.04) were more frequently MRP2 positive.

Prognostic analysis. With a median follow-up of 56 months, 404 of 782 (52%) patients had died (205 patients in the chemotherapy group and 199 patients in the control group). The 5-year overall survival rate was 43% [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 39-47%] in the total study population. Older age, male sex, higher lymph node status, nonadenocarcinoma, poor performance status, low lymphoid infiltration, and MRP2 expression were significantly associated with shorter overall survival in the univariate analyses. The Cox models were adjusted for these variables plus tumor stage, type of surgery, and treatment and stratified on centers. In these multivariate analyses, MRP2 was significantly associated with overall survival of the patients (Table 2 ; Fig. 2B ). Patients with MRP2-positive tumors had a significantly shorter overall survival than patients with MRP2-negative tumors [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.09-1.72; P = 0.007; Table 2; Fig. 2B]. The 5-year survival rates were 45% (95% CI, 39-50%) in MRP2-negative patients and 40% (95% CI, 34-46%) in MRP2-positive patients, respectively. Median overall survival was 9 months longer in the MRP2-negative group compared with the group of patients with MRP2-positive tumors (54 and 45 months, respectively; Table 2). In contrast, we found no significant correlation between MRP1 expression and overall survival of the patients (Table 2; Fig. 2A).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Prognostic analyses

 

Figure 2
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Fig. 2. Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival. A, overall survival according to MRP1 status in all 782 patients. The adjusted HR for death in MRP1-positive patients compared with MRP1-negative patients was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75-1.14; P = 0.47). B, overall survival according to MRP2 status in all 782 patients. The adjusted HR for death in MRP2-positive patients compared with MRP2-negative patients was 1.37 (95% CI, 1.09-1.72; P = 0.007). C, overall survival according to treatment in patients with MRP1-negative tumors. The adjusted HR for death in the chemotherapy group compared with the control group was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.60-1.04; P = 0.09). D, overall survival according to treatment in patients with MRP1-positive tumors. The adjusted HR for death in the chemotherapy group compared with the control group was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.71-1.28; P = 0.75). E, overall survival according to treatment in patients with MRP2-negative tumors. The adjusted HR for death in the chemotherapy group compared with the control group was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.71-1.21; P = 0.59). F, overall survival according to treatment in patients with MRP2-positive tumors. The adjusted HR for death in the chemotherapy group compared with the control group was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.60-1.12; P = 0.22).

 
Predictive analysis. Next, we analyzed the predictive value of MRP1 or MRP2. The benefit of cisplatin-based chemotherapy was not different between MRP1-negative and MRP1-positive patients (test for interaction, P = 0.37; Table 3A ), that is, the adjusted HR for death among MRP1-negative patients (0.79; 95% CI, 0.60-1.04) was not significantly different from that of MRP1-positive patients (0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.28; Fig. 2C and D). Similarly, the benefit of cisplatin-based chemotherapy was not different between MRP2-negative and MRP2-positive patients (test for interaction, P = 0.56; Table 3B), that is, the adjusted HR for death among MRP2-negative patients (0.93; 95% CI, 0.71-1.21) was not significantly different from that of MRP2-positive patients (0.82; 95% CI, 0.60-1.12; Fig. 2E and F).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Interaction between MRP1 or MRP2 and treatment

 

   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
Appendix 1. The IALT-Bio...
 References
 
In the present study, we assessed expression of MRP1 and MRP2 in a homogenous and well-defined patient population consisting of completely resected NSCLC patients who were enrolled into the IALT. This was the largest group of NSCLC patients ever used for the investigation of MRPs. We showed that MRP2 is of prognostic value in these patients, whereas MRP1 had no effect on survival. Neither MRP1 nor MRP2 predicted benefit of adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Therefore, MRP1 or MRP2 may not play a significant role in the drug resistance of completely resected NSCLC.

The MRP family (also known as C group of ATP-binding cassette transporters) currently consists of 13 structurally related ATP-binding cassette transporters that are involved in the transport of various substances (6, 7). Some of these proteins function as efflux pumps, thereby conferring resistance to anticancer drugs. The prognostic and/or predictive value of the different MRPs in malignant diseases is under investigation (6, 7).

In clinical NSCLC specimens, high levels of MRP1 are frequently observed but conflicting results has been published with regard to the prognostic value of MRP1 expression in NSCLC patients (12–19). Whereas MRP1 overexpression of the tumors predicts a worse outcome in two studies (12, 15), MRP1 expression was associated with longer overall survival in another report (19). In patients with advanced NSCLC treated with platinum-based chemotherapy, no significant relationship between MRP1 with response to chemotherapy or survival was observed (18). Interestingly, MRP2 expression was associated with overall survival but not with response to chemotherapy and progression-free survival, which is consistent with our results (18). Therefore, MRP2 expression may be of clinical relevance with regard to prognosis assessment (e.g., for molecular staging of lung cancer). However, before implementation for molecular staging of lung cancer patients, confirmatory data are required.

The IALT-Bio study was conducted according to a detailed protocol, which stressed the importance of collecting most of the tumor specimens within the participating centers, required a large sample size to ensure adequate power both for prognostic and predictive analyses, and specified a statistical plan of analysis. Adjusting on standard prognostic variables and specifying an objective cutoff point for defining positivity strengthen the reported results, notably about the prognostic role of MRP2 (20). For the predictive analyses, the estimated power for detecting a 20% absolute difference in 5-year survival was 66%. Thus, lack of significant predictive values of MRP1 and MRP2 does not exclude the possibility of a small predictive effect, which could only be detected by a much larger study population but would probably be without clinical relevance. Although it was not possible to collect tumor samples for 100% of the patients within centers, the 83% included did not differ from the 17% not included. Therefore, the advantages of conducting this study within a randomized trial preserved in particular patients allocated to chemotherapy are similar to patients in the control group with respect to known and unknown factors.

In the IALT-Bio study, the excision repair cross-complementation group 1 enzyme was recently characterized as predictor of the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (8). NSCLC patients with excision repair cross-complementation group 1–negative tumors benefit from adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy following complete tumor resection.

In conclusion, MRPs are frequently expressed in NSCLC patients. MRP2 expression is an independent prognostic factor in patients with completely resected NSCLC but neither MRP1 nor MRP2 was of predictive value in patients enrolled into the IALT.


   Appendix 1. The IALT-Bio Participating Centers (Investigators and Pathologists):
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1. The IALT-Bio...
References
 
Austria: R. Pirker, Department of Medicine I, Vienna; G. Dekan, Institute of Clinical Pathology, Vienna.

Belgium: J. Vansteenkiste, University Hospital, Leuven.

Brazil: I. Sathler Pinel, Instituto Nacional de Cancer, Rio de Janeiro; R. Younes, Hospital A.C. Camarco, Sao Paulo.

France: A.A. Kanoui, Centre Physiothérapie du Rouget, Sarcelles; R. Dachez, Laboratoire L.C.L., Paris; S. Deslignères, Hospital Delafontaine, Saint-Denis; O. Languille-Mimoune, Cabinet Pathologie, Paris; P. Sabatier, Centre Hospitalier Victor Dupouy, Argenteuil; T. Le Chevalier, Institut Gustave-Roussy, Villejuif; M. Antoine, Hôpital Tenon, Paris; P. Boz, Cabinet de Pathologie, Papeete; P. Bruneval, Association Promotion Anatomie Pathologique, Paris; M.C. Charpentier, Cabinet Pathologie Tolbiac, Paris; B. Chetaille, Hôpital Sainte Marguerite, Marseille; E. Dulmet, Centre Chirurgical Marie-Lannelongue, Le Plessis Robinson; F. Capron, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpétrière, Paris; B. Gosselin, C.H.U., Lille; D. Grunenwald, P. Validire, Institut Mutualiste Montsouris, Paris; F. Labrousse, C.H.U., Limoges; N. Pericoli, Roma (Italy); D. Petrot, Cabinet d'Anatomie Pathologique, Niort; N. Rouyer, Cabinet de Pathologie Butet-Rouyer, Nice; B. Milleron, M. Antoine, Hôpital Tenon, Paris; J.F. Morère, M.A. Kambouchner, Hôpital Avicenne, Bobigny; G. Ozenne, Ceditrac-CMC du Cèdre, Bois Guillaume; T. Ducastelle, Laboratoire d'Anatomie et Cytologie, Rouen; E. Quoix, Hôpital Lyautey, Strasbourg; P. Durand de Grossouvre, Laboratoire d'Anatomie Pathologique, Haguenau; B. Gasser, C.H.U., Strasbourg; A. Rivière, Centre François Baclesse, Caen; F. Galateau-Salle, CHU, Caen; C. Tuchais, P. Jallet, G. Bertrand, I. Valo, Centre Paul Papin, Angers.

Germany: W. Eberhardt, University Hospital, Essen; D. Theegarten, Institute of Pathology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum.

Greece: P. Christaki, Papanikolaou General Hospital, Pylea; T. Dosios, V. Kyriakou, Athens University School of Medicine, Athens; E. Papadakis, P. Agelidou, Sotiria Hospital, Athens; K. Zarogoulidis, University Hospital, Thessaloniki.

Italy: A. Masotti, Azienda Ospedaliera Di Verona, Verona.

Lithuania: A. Jackevicius, Institute of Oncology Vilnius University, Vilnius.

Poland: J. Laudanski, L.Chyczewski, M. Kozlowski, J. Niklinski, Medical School, Bialystok. T. Grodski, J. Pankowski, Regional Hospital for Lung Diseases, Szczecin; T. Orlowski, M. Chabowski, R. Langfort, Institute of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Warsaw; B. Muszczynska-Bernhard, Dolnoslaskiego Centrum Chorob Pluc, Wroclaw.

Romania: T. Ciuleanu, Oncological Institute "Ion Chiricuta," Cluj-Napoca.

Slovakia: J. Baumohl, University Teach. Hospital, Kosice.

Spain: F. Cardenal, Hospital Duran I Reynals, Barcelona; R. Bernat, Hospital de Bellvitge, Barcelona; J. Salinas, J.B. Lopez, Hospital Virgen de Arrixaca, El Palmar Murcia.

Sweden: B. Bergman, A. Hussein, Sahlgrenska Hospital, Göteborg.

Yugoslavia: G. Radosavljevic, Institute for Lung Disease, Belgrade.


   Footnotes
 
Grant support: Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (GZ 200.062/2-VI/1/2002), Austrian Science Fund (P15377), Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique, Cancéropôle Rhône-Alpes, Institute of Pathology Graz, and an unrestricted research grant from Eli Lilly.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Received 10/ 9/06; revised 4/ 6/07; accepted 4/24/07.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 Appendix 1. The IALT-Bio...
 References
 

  1. The International Adjuvant Lung Cancer Trial Collaborative Group. Cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;350:351–60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Winton T, Livingston R, Johnson D, et al. Vinorelbine plus cisplatin vs. observation in resected non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2589–97.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Douillard JY, Rosell R, De Lena M, et al. Adjuvant vinorelbine plus cisplatin versus observation in patients with completely resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (Adjuvant Navelbine International Trialist Association [ANITA]): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2006;7:719–27.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Pignon J-P, Tribodet H, Scagliotti GV, et al. Lung Adjuvant Cisplatin Evaluation (LACE): a pooled analysis of five randomized clinical trials including 4,584 patients [abstr]. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:366.
  5. Gottesman MM, Fojo T, Bates SE. Multidrug resistance in cancer: role of ATP-dependent transporters. Nat Rev Cancer 2002;2:48–58.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Filipits M. Mechanisms of cancer: multidrug resistance. Drug Discov Today 2004;1:229–34.[CrossRef]
  7. Deeley RG, Westlake C, Cole SP. Transmembrane transport of endo- and xenobiotics by mammalian ATP-binding cassette multidrug resistance proteins. Physiol Rev 2006;86:849–99.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Olaussen KA, Dunant A, Fouret P, et al. DNA repair by ERCC1 in non-small-cell lung cancer and cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 2006;355:983–91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Filipits M, Pohl G, Rudas M, et al. Clinical role of multidrug resistance protein 1 expression in chemotherapy resistance in early-stage breast cancer: the Austrian Breast and Colorectal Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:1161–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Altman DG, Lyman GH. Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998;52:289–303.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Schmoor C, Sauerbrei W, Schumacher M. Sample size considerations for the evaluation of prognostic factors in survival analysis. Stat Med 2000;19:441–52.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Ota E, Abe Y, Oshika Y, et al. Expression of the multidrug resistance-associated protein (MRP) gene in non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 1995;72:550–4.[Medline]
  13. Sugawara I, Yamada H, Nakamura H, et al. Preferential expression of the multidrug-resistance-associated protein (MRP) in adenocarcinoma of the lung. Int J Cancer 1995;64:322–5.[Medline]
  14. Nooter K, Bosman FT, Burger H, et al. Expression of the multidrug resistance-associated protein (MRP) gene in primary non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 1996;7:75–81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Oshika Y, Nakamura M, Tokunaga T, et al. Multidrug resistance-associated protein and mutant p53 protein expression in non-small cell lung cancer. Mod Pathol 1998;11:1059–63.[Medline]
  16. Wright SR, Boag AH, Valdimarsson G, et al. Immunohistochemical detection of multidrug resistance protein in human lung cancer and normal lung. Clin Cancer Res 1998;4:2279–89.[Abstract]
  17. Dingemans AC, van Ark-Otte J, Span S, et al. Topoisomerase II{alpha} and other drug resistance markers in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2001;32:117–28.[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Yoh K, Ishii G, Yokose T, et al. Breast cancer resistance protein impacts clinical outcome in platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:1691–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Berger W, Setinek U, Hollaus P, et al. Multidrug resistance markers P-glycoprotein, multidrug resistance protein 1, and lung resistance protein in non-small cell lung cancer: prognostic implications. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2005;131:355–63.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM. Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1180–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]




This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Filipits, M.
Right arrow Articles by Pirker, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Filipits, M.
Right arrow Articles by Pirker, R.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online