Excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) status and lung cancer outcomes: A meta-analysis of published studies and recommendations

Abstract

Purpose: Despite discrepant results on clinical utility, several trials are already prospectively randomizing non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients by ERCC1 status. We aimed to characterize the prognostic and predictive effect of ERCC1 by systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Eligible studies assessed survival and/or chemotherapy response in NSCLC or SCLC by ERCC1 status. Effect measures of interest were hazard ratio (HR) for survival or relative risk (RR) for chemotherapy response. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to account for between-study heterogeneity, with unadjusted/adjusted effect estimates considered separately. Results: 23 eligible studies provided survival results in 2,726 patients. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in all meta-analyses (I 2 always >30%), partly due to variability in thresholds defining 'low' and 'high' ERCC1. Meta-analysis of unadjusted estimates showed high ERCC1 was associated with significantly worse overall survival in platinum-treated NSCLC (average unadjusted HR = 1.61, 95%CI:1.23-2.1, p = 0.014), but not in NSCLC untreated with chemotherapy (average unadjusted HR = 0.82, 95%CI:0.51-1.31). Meta-analysis of adjusted estimates was limited by variable choice of adjustment factors and potential publication bias (Egger's p<0.0001). There was evidence that high ERCC1 was associated with reduced response to platinum (average RR = 0.80; 95%CI:0.64-0.99). SCLC data were inadequate to draw firm conclusions. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests high ERCC1 may adversely influence survival and response in platinum-treated NSCLC patients, but not in non-platinum treated, although definitive evidence of a predictive influence is lacking. International consensus is urgently required to provide consistent, validated ERCC1 assessment methodology. ERCC1 assessment for treatment selection should currently be restricted to, and evaluated within, clinical trials. © 2011 Hubner et al.