O6-Methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase protein expression by immunohistochemistry in brain and non-brain systemic tumours: systematic review and meta-analysis of correlation with methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction

dc.contributor.author
Brell Doval, Marta
dc.contributor.author
Ibáñez, Javier
dc.contributor.author
Tortosa i Moreno, Avelina
dc.date.issued
2011-06-08T10:04:56Z
dc.date.issued
2011-06-08T10:04:56Z
dc.date.issued
2011-01-26
dc.date.issued
2011-02-15T17:08:05Z
dc.identifier
1471-2407
dc.identifier
https://hdl.handle.net/2445/18324
dc.identifier
589752
dc.identifier
21269507
dc.description.abstract
Background: The DNA repair protein O6-Methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) confers resistance to alkylating agents. Several methods have been applied to its analysis, with methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction (MSP) the most commonly used for promoter methylation study, while immunohistochemistry (IHC) has become the most frequently used for the detection of MGMT protein expression. Agreement on the best and most reliable technique for evaluating MGMT status remains unsettled. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the correlation between IHC and MSP. Methods A computer-aided search of MEDLINE (1950-October 2009), EBSCO (1966-October 2009) and EMBASE (1974-October 2009) was performed for relevant publications. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were those comparing MGMT protein expression by IHC with MGMT promoter methylation by MSP in the same cohort of patients. Methodological quality was assessed by using the QUADAS and STARD instruments. Previously published guidelines were followed for meta-analysis performance. Results Of 254 studies identified as eligible for full-text review, 52 (20.5%) met the inclusion criteria. The review showed that results of MGMT protein expression by IHC are not in close agreement with those obtained with MSP. Moreover, type of tumour (primary brain tumour vs others) was an independent covariate of accuracy estimates in the meta-regression analysis beyond the cut-off value. Conclusions Protein expression assessed by IHC alone fails to reflect the promoter methylation status of MGMT. Thus, in attempts at clinical diagnosis the two methods seem to select different groups of patients and should not be used interchangeably.
dc.format
13 p.
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.language
eng
dc.publisher
BioMed Central
dc.relation
Reproducció del document publicat a: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-11-35
dc.relation
BMC Cancer, 2011, vol. 11, núm. 35
dc.relation
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-11-35
dc.rights
cc-by, (c) Brell et al., 2011
dc.rights
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
dc.rights
Brell et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.source
Articles publicats en revistes (Infermeria Fonamental i Clínica)
dc.subject
Expressió gènica
dc.subject
Immunohistoquímica
dc.subject
Cervell
dc.subject
Gene expression
dc.subject
Immunohistochemistry
dc.subject
Brain
dc.title
O6-Methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase protein expression by immunohistochemistry in brain and non-brain systemic tumours: systematic review and meta-analysis of correlation with methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.