Predictive and prognostic values of ERCC1 and XRCC1 in biliary tract cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate the predictive and prognostic values of DNA repair genes excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) and X-ray repair cross-complementing group 1 (XRCC1) in tumour samples from patients with a diagnosis of biliary tract cancer (BTC). METHODS: Expressions of ERCC1 and XRCC1 were determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for 160 patients with BTC and association with clinicopathological features and patient survival was performed to evaluate their predictive and prognostic values. RESULTS: Neoplastic tissue showed much lower nuclear expression compared with non-neoplastic tissue for ERCC1 (median immunostaining score (IS)=0.7 (95% CI 0.2 to 1.3) vs 8.0 (95% CI 5.5 to 8.0), p<0.001) and XRCC1 (median IS=4.0 (95% CI 3.0 to 5.5) vs 8.0 (95% CI 8.0 to 12.0), p<0.001). High nuclear expression of both proteins was able to predict better overall survival (OS) in patients with gallbladder adenocarcinoma, distal bile duct and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma undergoing gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy (ERCC1: median OS estimate=39.7 vs 22.9 months, p=0.011; XRCC1: median OS estimate=33.8 vs 14.6 months, p=0.005). Intense cytoplasmic expression of XRCC1 was found in 12 patients; these patients had significantly more frequent lymph node metastasis (90.0% vs 48.1%, p=0.017) and worse OS (median estimate=12.6 months vs 25.6 months, p=0.004) and recurrence-free survival (median estimate=5.7 months vs 15.1 months, p=0.011). Vascular invasion was significantly more frequent in patients with low nuclear expression for ERCC1 (58.7% vs 20.9%, p<0.001) and XRCC1 (69.6% vs 30.3%, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IHC expression of ERCC1 and XRCC1 has some predictive and prognostic values in patients with BTC. Nuclear expression of ERCC1 and XRCC1 may be used to predict therapeutic response in patients undergoing gemcitabine monotherapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".