Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Gynecol Oncol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 May 1.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3490188

Pre-Treatment Tumor Expression of ERCC1 in Women with Advanced Stage Epithelial Ovarian Cancer is Not Predictive of Clinical Outcomes

A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study



Excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) is required for the repair of platinum-induced DNA damage. This study sought to assess the prognostic value of ERCC1 expression, measured by immunohistochemistry (IHC) using a highly specific antibody, in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy.


Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumors were collected from two GOG phase III trials (GOG-172 and GOG-182) of patients with stage III/IV EOC treated with platinum-based chemotherapy. ERCC1 was detected by (IHC) using FL297 polyclonal antibody and tumors were categorized as negative or positive, based on nuclear staining of tumor cells. ERCC1 genotyping was performed as previously reported. Associations between ERCC1 expression and clinical characteristics, platinum responsiveness, progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) were evaluated.


Of 408 eligible patients, 27% had tumors that were ERCC1 positive. ERCC1 expression was not associated with clinical characteristics or platinum -responsiveness. Women with ERCC1-positive versus -negative tumors had similar median PFS (17.9 months versus 17.5 months, respectively, p=0.59), median OS (52.0 months versus 47.0 months, respectively, p=0.30), risk of disease progression (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]=0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71–1.15, p=0.41), and risk of death (adjusted HR=0.81, 95% CI: 0.61–1.07, p=0.14). ERCC1 expression, as measured by IHC, was not associated with single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), in codon 118 and C8092A, of the ERCC1 gene.


ERCC1 expression, measured by IHC in pre-treatment tumor specimens, using a highly specific antibody, has limited clinical value in patients with advanced EOC treated with platinum and taxane based chemotherapy.

Keywords: ovarian cancer, biomarker, DNA repair, platinum-resistance, prognosis


Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) affects approximately 21,990 patients each year, resulting in approximately 15,460 deaths [1]. Patients typically present with advanced stage disease that receive multimodal therapy, including aggressive surgical cytoreductive surgery to achieve maximal tumor resection followed by combination platinum-based chemotherapy. Aggressive surgery and chemotherapy have yielded 5-year survivals ranging from 30–50% [26], with the majority of patients relapsing after an initial response to platinum-based chemotherapy [7]. Patients who achieve optimal cytoreductive surgery generally experience longer progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared to patients with suboptimal residual disease [25]. In addition, other clinical and biologic factors, including genetics, environmental exposure, tumor histology, patient age, performance status and baseline organ function may influence long-term outcomes in patients with advanced EOC [7].

Response to primary and secondary platinum-based chemotherapy remains a critical determinant of survival for EOC patients, and is limited by the development of platinum resistance. Possible mechanisms of platinum resistance include decreased uptake/increased efflux of chemotherapeutic drugs, increased metabolism/inactivation of platinum drugs, or increased repair of platinum-induced DNA damage. The correlation between intracellular influx/efflux of platinum-based therapies, aberrant copper transporter expression, and increased glutathione expression have been studied extensively but have led to little advancement in combating platinum drug resistance [8]. Of note, loss of BRCA1/2 function has been correlated with platinum sensitivity and has increased interest in the relationship between DNA repair mechanisms and platinum drug resistance. In some cases, EOC tumors from BRCA mutation carriers who become resistant to platinum-based therapy were discovered to have secondary mutations in the same gene, restoring BRCA function [9]. BRCA1 and BRCA2 are involved in homologous-recombination, a DNA repair mechanism required for repair of double-strand breaks and interstrand crosslinks [10].

Excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) is one subunit of the DNA repair endonuclease ERCC1-XPF. The enzyme was discovered for its essential role in nucleotide excision repair (NER) [11], the repair pathway that removes helix-distorting lesions affecting one strand of DNA such as cisplatin-induced monoadducts and intrastrand crosslinks [12]. ERCC1-XPF is also essential for the repair of DNA interstrand crosslinks (ICL) [12, 13], highly cytotoxic lesions induced by bifunctional genotoxins like cisplatin [14]. ERCC1-XPF is the only enzyme required for both NER and ICL-repair and, therefore, removal of all types of platinum-induced DNA damage [1214]. Hence, ERCC1 has been the focus of much research aimed at discovering mechanisms of tumor resistance to platinum-based therapy [13, 14]. Elevated ERCC1 expression has been implicated in the development of platinum resistant disease in head and neck, non-small cell lung and gastric cancer, as well as ovarian carcinoma [1519]. However, in many tumor types the results are variable, showing positive or no correlation between ERCC1 expression and various clinical endpoints [20, 21]. Part of this variability may arise from the fact that an antibody commonly used in clinical trials (8F-1) to measure ERCC1 protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) is not specific for ERCC1 [22]. Bhagwat et al evaluated six commercially available antibodies for specificity detecting ERCC1 by western blot, immunoprecipitation, immunofluorescence, and IHC. Conclusions demonstrated that the FL297 antibody was specific for ERCC1 when using IHC [22]. Herein, we sought to test the hypothesis that increased ERCC1 protein expression, as detected by IHC, predicts poor response to platinum based therapy in EOC, using an antibody that was previously characterized and demonstrated to be specific for ERCC1 [22].



Patients who participated in GOG-172 and GOG-182 and provided tumor samples for translational research were included in this study. GOG-172 was a randomized trial of IV versus IP cisplatin + paclitaxel with optimally resected stage III EOC or primary peritoneal carcinoma (defined as ≤ 1 cm maximal diameter of residual tumor) [23]. GOG-182 was a randomized trial of primary triplet and sequential doublet chemotherapy compared to standard IV carboplatin + paclitaxel in women with previously untreated, histologically-confirmed stage III or IV EOC with either optimal or suboptimal residual disease after primary cytoreduction [24]. Please see Supplemental Data for regimen details. Women on both protocols were required to have adequate hematologic and vital organ function as previously described but could not have a borderline tumor with low malignant potential [23,24]. Pathology was centrally reviewed and confirmed by the Gynecology Oncology Group (GOG) pathology committee. All women provided written informed consent for treatment and translational research, and participating institutions were required to obtain annual Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval consistent with federal, state, and local requirements. In addition, Magee-Womens Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center provided IRB approval for this study of ERCC1 in EOC.

Clinical End-Points

PFS was calculated as the time in months from study enrollment to disease progression or death, or to the date of last contact for women who were alive with no evidence of disease progression. OS was calculated as the time from enrollment to death or to the date of last contact for those who were still alive. Platinum-sensitive disease was defined as PFS ≥12 months, platinum-resistant as PFS between 6 to 11 months and platinum-refractory as PFS < 6 months.

Tumor Specimens and Immunohistochemistry for ERCC1

Formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded primary tumor specimens were collected during primary cytoreductive surgery and prior to the initiation of any first-line chemotherapy from women. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed on 5-micrometer sections. Antigen retrieval was completed at pH 6 using DAKO Target retrieval solution (DakoCytomation, Carpinteria, CA) at 95°C for 20 minutes. Specimens were then blocked with 3% hydrogen peroxide for 10 minutes, rinsed with deionized water and Tris buffered saline (TBS), followed by CAS blocking solution (Invitrogen Corporation, Carlsbad, CA) for 5 minutes. Slides were incubated with FL297 (anti-ERCC1 rabbit polyclonal antibody 1:250, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA) for 60 minutes at room temperature. Primary antibody signal was then detected using biotinylated anti-mouse secondary antibody for 30 minutes and DAB+ for 5 minutes at room temperature (Vectastain ABC kit; Vector Laboratories). Hematoxylin was used for counterstaining. Human tonsil and tumor tissue incubated with IgG were utilized as positive and negative controls for each processing run, respectively. ERCC1 expression was evaluated (RD and JMR) in a binary fashion where any nuclei staining in a specimen was defined as positive and lack of any nuclei staining as negative (Figure 1). The reviewers were masked to clinical outcomes and discrepancies were simultaneously reviewed a second time for consensus.

ERCC1 expression in ovarian carcinoma. A) Serous ovarian carcinoma with negative immunoexpression of ERCC1 (original magnification 400X). B) Strong nuclear immunoexpression of ERCC1 in tumor cells only, with surrounding stroma negative (original magnification ...

Isolation of DNA and Genotyping

DNA was extracted from white blood cells from whole blood and processed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for ERCC1 codons 118 and C8092A as described previously [25].

Statistical Methods

The PFS or OS probability was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was employed to compare the difference between ERCC1 positive and negative patients. The association of ERCC1 expression with PFS or OS was further analyzed using a Cox model by controlling for important clinical factors including tumor cell type (clear cell + mucinous versus other), treatment regimen (seven regimes as defined in Table 1) and an aggregate of tumor stage by residual disease status (optimally-resected stage III, suboptimally-resected stage III, stage IV). The Chi-square or Fisher-exact test was used to assess the association of ERCC1 expression with clinical covariates. All reported P values are two-sided and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Table 1
Patient Characteristics


A total of 408 patients were included for this analysis, including 212 patients from GOG-172 and 196 patients from GOG-182. The median age of this population was 58 years, 91% were Caucasians, 79% had serous adenocarcinoma, 53% were poorly differentiated and 76% had stage III disease with optimal residual (Table 1). As of this analysis, 268 women had died, 67 were alive with no evidence of disease and 73 were alive with disease recurrence. Median follow-up for those women who were still alive was 71 months (75 months for GOG-172 and 65 months for GOG-182).

Of 408 patients, 108 (27%) were defined as ERCC1 positive and the remaining 300 (73.5%) as negative by IHC. Representative sections of negative and positive ERCC1 staining are shown in Figure 1. There is no evidence that ERCC1 expression was associated with patient clinical characteristics (Table 2). Based on all 408 patients from two protocols, the median PFS was 17.9 months for ERCC1 positive vs. 17.5 months for ERCC1 negative patients, without showing a difference (p=0.586) (Figure 2A). The result was consistent across multivariate analysis after controlling for histology, stage, residual disease and treatment regimen (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.71–1.15, p=0.405) (Table 3). The analyses were also conducted for each protocol separately, and there was no indication that IHC detection of ERCC1 was predictive of PFS, either in GOG-172 (cisplatin-based chemotherapy) or GOG 182 (carboplatin-based chemotherapy) (Figure 2B–2C and Table 3). The results on OS were similar. The median OS were 52 months and 47 months, respectively, for ERCC1 positive and negative patients (p=0.304) and the HR adjusted for clinical covariates was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.61–1.07, p=0.140) (Figure 3A and Table 3). Of note, the analysis from GOG-182 suggested a trend toward decreased risk of death among patients with ERCC1 positive (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.46–1.04, p=0.080) (Table 3 and Figure 3C). There is no association between ERCC1 protein expression and two common, ERCC1 SNPs (codon 118 and C8092A) as shown in Figure 4.

Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) between women whose tumors stained positive versus those whose tumors stained negative for ERCC1: (A) analysis from combined data of two protocols; (B) analysis from GOG-172; and (C) analysis from ...
Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival (OS) between women whose tumors stained positive versus those whose tumors stained negative for ERCC1: (A) analysis from combined data of two protocols; (B) analysis from GOG-172; and (C) analysis from GOG-182. ...
Associations of ERCC1 Expression and Genetic Polymorphisms (codon118 and C8092A)
Table 2
Association of ERCC1 Expression with Clinical Characteristics
Table 3
Progression-free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS) by ERCC1 Expression


Platinum resistance in advanced EOC is a difficult problem to manage clinically, contributing to the high case-fatality ratio associated with advanced stage disease. Establishing a reliable biomarker of platinum resistance would enhance patient management by limiting toxicity from ineffective chemotherapy and triaging patients towards treatments that may have an increased response rates. Even though there is much interest in ERCC1 as a potential biomarker of platinum-resistance, our findings demonstrate that ERCC1 protein expression, as assessed by IHC in pre-treatment tumor specimens utilizing a well-characterized, highly specific antibody, is not associated with PFS or OS in patients with advanced stage EOC. It is possible that expression of ERCC1 may change following primary chemotherapy. However, most patients do not undergo repeat biopsies at the time of recurrence, and additional specimens were not available for patients enrolled on these phase III trials.

Early in vitro investigation provided the basis for the interest in ERCC1 protein expression as a predictor of platinum resistance in ovarian cancer. Exposing ovarian tumor cell lines to cisplatin in culture increases ERCC1 protein expression in a time- and dose-dependent fashion [26]. Furthermore, cells with a two-fold increased expression of ERCC1, determined by immunoblot, demonstrate increased removal of cisplatin DNA adducts, as measured by atomic absorption spectrometry [27]. These results were consistent with, but not definitive proof of, the hypothesis that ERCC1 expression is inducible in response to genotoxic stress and rate limiting for DNA repair.

Previous studies investigating a relationship between ERCC1 protein expression and clinical endpoints in ovarian carcinoma yielded conflicting results (supplemental data). Originally, Steffensen et al used IHC with the anti-ERCC1 antibody 8F1 to examine 100 tumor specimens [28]. Forty-five percent of specimens were positive which was associated with a significantly poorer response to chemotherapy (p<0.001). This did not translate into a difference in OS benefit [28]. However, treatment regimens after disease recurrence are highly varied and may significantly alter OS statistics leading to a recent shift towards increased emphasis on PFS as the primary study endpoint in ovarian cancer. A second study, corroborated these findings by demonstrating that low ERCC1 protein expression was significantly associated with drug sensitivity (p<0.001) in 63 patient specimens [29]. A majority of patients in both studies received carboplatin and cyclophosphamide as adjuvant therapy instead of the more standard platinum/taxane combination which has been shown to improve OS [30]. To address the possible effect of different chemotherapy regimens on OS, Steffensen et al repeated the analysis on 101 patients with advanced EOC treated with carboplatinum and paclitaxel. They once again found a significant relationship between negative ERCC1 expression and platinum sensitivity (p=0.0013) and PFS (p=0.0012), but no significant difference in OS (p=0.099) [18]. A major difference between this study and ours is the low percent of patients that were scored as ERCC1-positive (14% vs. 27% in the present study). Furthermore, patients with stable disease were included in the platinum sensitive group in the previous studies. Most importantly, they used the antibody 8F-1, which is not specific for the ERCC1 protein [22]. Bhagwat et al demonstrated that the only commercially available antibody specific for detecting ERCC1 by IHC is the FL297 antibody [22].

In contrast, a separate group conducted an independent analysis utilizing the same, non-specific antibody 8F-1 antibody for IHC, the same scoring method, and on samples from patients (n=80) treated with similar a chemotherapy regimen and found low overall ERCC1 expression (20.3%) and no association between protein expression and platinum responsiveness (p=0.21) [20]. Our result is consistent with this negative result, and is the largest study to date with over 420 primary tumor specimens. Furthermore, our data provide definitive information about the relationship between ERCC1 protein expression and clinical outcomes, because our study utilized an antibody demonstrated to be specific for ERCC1 [22].

While IHC of paraffin embedded tumor sections is a relatively easy modality for measuring, potential prognostic biomarkers, peripheral blood cells are even easier and more rapid to obtain and characterize. In keeping with the hypothesis that ERCC1 expression is a regulator of DNA repair capacity, there has been much interest in analyzing ERCC1 SNPs for their ability to predict a patient’s response to platinum-based therapy. Using ovarian cancer cell lines, it was demonstrated that the wild type codon 118 (C/C) correlated with increased repair of cisplatin-induced DNA damage [31]. Furthermore, in EOC tumor samples, a genotype of C/C at codon 118 was associated with a greater risk of disease progression (HR=3.73, p=0.003) compared with patients with the C/T or T/T genotype [32].

Previously, we demonstrated that the genotype of the ERCC1 codon 118 was not associated with clinical outcome [25]. However, women with ERCC1 C8092A C/A or A/A genotype had a significantly increased risk of disease progression, compared to patients with a C/C genotype [25]. These results were corroborated by Kim et al, who found that C/A or A/A ERCC1 C8092A genotype were significantly correlated with poor PFS and OS [33]. Conversely, other investigators have shown no correlation between SNP C8092A and survival, but did show correlation with increased rates of renal dysfunction after treatment with cisplatin [34]. Finally, a large pharmacogenetic study with patients enrolled on the Scottish Randomized Trial in Ovarian Cancer (SCOTROC1) failed to show any significant associations between genotype and outcome or toxicity after examining four ERCC1 polymorphisms including codon 118 and C8092A [35]. The current study demonstrates that neither SNP is associated with ERCC1 protein expression as measured by IHC.

Developing sensitive molecular diagnostic tests to determine who will and will not respond to standard chemotherapy regimens is an important component of individualized treatment planning to improve patient outcomes. Utilizing sequential tumor specimens in patients who have been treated with platinum based chemotherapy may allow for the evaluation of induction of specific genes involved in DNA repair. With increased use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery in patients with bulky stage III–IV disease, it may be possible to compare paired tumor specimens obtained pre- and post-chemotherapy. These results may lead to an improved understanding of the development of chemotherapy resistance. In this current study we showed that ERCC1 expression, as detected by IHC, was not a biomarker to predict clinical outcomes or response to therapy in patients with advanced EOC treated with platinum based chemotherapy. It is possible that xeroderma pigmentosum, complementation group f (XPF), the obligate binding partner of ERCC1, is the subunit that may have biomarker potential. Studies investigating XPF protein expression and ovarian caner have yet to be performed. Further studies to detect subtleties in ERCC1 protein expression may be clinically valuable in determining prognosis or even directed therapeutic options. Utilizing alternative methodologies such as quantitative immunoblot and mass spectrometry are likely to improve sensitivity.


  • ERCC1 tumor expression in advanced EOC is not associated with patient survival
  • Common polymorphisms in ERCC1 were not associated with ERCC1
  • immunohistochemical expression

Supplementary Material



This study was supported by National Cancer Institute grants to the Gynecologic Oncology Group Administrative Office (CA 27469), the Gynecologic Oncology Group Statistical and Data Center (CA 37517). This project used the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute Tissue and Research Pathology Services and was supported in part by award P30CA047904. L.J.N. and J.M.R. were supported by NIEHS (ES016114). The following Gynecologic Oncology Group member institutions participated in this study: Roswell Park Cancer Institute, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Duke University Medical Center, Abington Memorial Hospital, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, University of Minnesota Medical School, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Colorado Gynecologic Oncology Group P.C., University of California at Los Angeles, University of Washington, University of Pennsylvania Cancer Center, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Indiana University School of Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, University of California Medical Center at Irvine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, Magee Women’s Hospital, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, University of Kentucky, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Southwestern Oncology Group, Washington University School of Medicine, Cooper Hospital/University Medical Center, Columbus Cancer Council, MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Women’s Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma, University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, University of Chicago, Tacoma General Hospital, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Mayo Clinic, Case Western Reserve University, Tampa Bay Cancer Consortium, North Shore University Hospital, Gynecologic Oncology Network, Ellis Fischel Cancer Center, Fletcher Allen Health Care, Australia New Zealand GOG, Southern Nevada CCOP, Yale University, University of Wisconsin Hospital, Cancer Trials Support Unit, University of Texas Galveston, Southeast Gynecologic Oncology, Community Clinical Oncology Program, MRC-United Kingdom, and Mario Negri.



The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.


1. Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Neyman N, Aminou R, Waldron W, Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Eisner MP, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA, Edwards BK, editors. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2008. National Cancer Institute; Bethesda, MD: 2011., based on November 2010 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site.
2. Hoskins WJ, Bundy BN, Thigpen JT, Omura GA. The influence of cytoreductive surgery on recurrence-free interval and survival in small-volume stage III epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol Oncol. 1992;47:159–66. [PubMed]
3. Hoskins WJ, McGuire WP, Brady MF, Homesley HD, Creasman WT, Berman M, et al. The effect of diameter of largest residual disease on survival after primary cytoreductive surgery in patients with suboptimal residual epithelial ovarian carcinoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170:974–9. discussion 979–80. [PubMed]
4. Hacker NF, Berek JS, Lagasse LD, Nieberg RK, Elashoff RM. Primary cytoreductive surgery for epithelial ovarian cancer. Obstet Gynecol. 1983;61:413–20. [PubMed]
5. McGuire V, Jesser CA, Whittemore AS. Survival among U.S. women with invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2002;84:399–403. [PubMed]
6. Armstrong DK. Relapsed ovarian cancer: challenges and management strategies for a chronic disease. Oncologist. 2002;7 (Suppl 5):20–8. [PubMed]
7. Winter WE, 3rd, Maxwell GL, Tian C, Carlson JW, Ozols RF, Rose PG, et al. Prognostic factors for stage III epithelial ovarian cancer: a Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3621–7. [PubMed]
8. Rabik CA, Dolan ME. Molecular mechanisms of resistance and toxidity associated with platinating agents. Cancer Treat Reviews. 2007;33:9–23. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9. Swisher EM, Gonzalez RM, Taniguchi T, Garcia RL, Walsh T, Goff BA, et al. Methylation and protein expression of DNA repair genes: association with chemotherapy exposure and suvival in sporadic ovarian and peritoneal carcinomas. Mol Cancer. 2009;8:48. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. O’Donovan PJ, Livingston DM. BRCA1 and BRCA2: breast/ovarian cancer susceptibility gene products and participants in DNA double-strand break repair. Carcinogenesis. 2010;31:961–7. [PubMed]
11. Volker M, Moné MJ, Karmaker P, van Hoffen A, Schul W, Vermeulen W, et al. Sequential assembly of the nucleotide excision repair factors in vivo. Mol Cell. 2001;8:213–24. [PubMed]
12. Niedernhofer LJ, Odijk H, Budzowska M, van Drunen E, Maas A, Theil AF, et al. The structure-specific endonuclease Ercc1-Xpf is required to resolve DNA interstrand cross-link-induced double-strand breaks. Mol Cell Biol. 2004;24:5776–87. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
13. Martin LP, Hamilton TC, Schilder RJ. Platinum resistance: the role of DNA repair pathways. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:1291–5. [PubMed]
14. Reed E. Platinum-DNA adduct, nucleotide excision repair and platinum based anti-cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Treat Rev. 1998;24:331–44. [PubMed]
15. Handra-Luca A, Hernandez J, Mountzios G, Taranchno E, Lacau-St-Guily J, Soria JC, et al. Excision repair cross complementation group 1 immunohistochemical expression predicts objective response and cancer-specific survival in patients treated by Cisplatin-based induction chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:3855–9. [PubMed]
16. Olaussen KA, Dunant A, Fouret P, Brambilla E, André F, Haddad V, 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. [PubMed]
17. Kwon HC, Roh MS, Oh SY, Kim SH, Kim MC, Kim JS, et al. Prognostic value of expression of ERCC1, thymidylate synthase, and glutathione S-transferase P1 for 5-fluorouracil/oxaliplatin chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:504–9. [PubMed]
18. Steffensen KD, Waldstrom M, Jakobsen A. The relationship of platinum resistance and ERCC1 protein expression in epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009;19:820–5. [PubMed]
19. Reed E, Dabholkar M, Thornton K, Thompson C, Yu JJ, Bostick-Bruton F, et al. Evidence for in the appearance of mRNAs of nucleotide excision repair genes, in human ovarian cancer tissues. Oncol Rep. 2000;7:1123–8. [PubMed]
20. Stadlmann S, Dirnhofer S, Güth U, Thies S, Singer G. ERCC1-immunoexpression does not predict platinum-resistance in ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2008;108:252–3. [PubMed]
21. Wachters FM, Wong LS, Timens W, Kampinga HH, Groen HJ. ERCC1, hRad51, and BRCA1 protein expression in relation to tumour response and survival of stage III/IV NSCLC patients treated with chemotherapy. Lung Cancer. 2005;50:211–9. [PubMed]
22. Bhagwat NR, Roginskaya VY, Acquafondata MB, Dhir R, Wood RD, Niedernhofer LJ. Immunodetection of DNA repair endonuclease ERCC1-XPF in human tissue. Cancer Res. 2009;69:6831–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
23. Armstrong DK, Bundy B, Wenzel L, Huang HQ, Baergen R, Lele S, et al. Intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:34–43. [PubMed]
24. Bookman MA, Brady MF, McGuire WP, Harper PG, Alberts DS, Friedlander M, et al. Evaluation of new platinum-based treatment regimens in advanced-stage ovarian cancer: a Phase III Trial of the Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1419–25. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
25. Krivak TC, Darcy KM, Tian C, Armstrong D, Baysal BE, Gallion H, et al. Relationship between ERCC1 polymorphisms, disease progression, and survival in the Gynecologic Oncology Group Phase III Trial of intraperitoneal versus intravenous cisplatin and paclitaxel for stage III epithelial ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3598–606. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
26. Li Q, Ding L, Yu JJ, Mu C, Tsang B, Bostick-Bruton F, et al. Cisplatin and phorbol ester independently induce ERCC-1 protein in human ovarian carcinoma cells. Int J Oncol. 1998;13:987–92. [PubMed]
27. Li Q, Yu JJ, Mu C, Yunmbam MK, Slavsky D, Cross CL, et al. Association between the level of ERCC-1 expression and the repair of cisplatin-induced DNA damage in human ovarian cancer cells. Anticancer Res. 2000;20:645–52. [PubMed]
28. Steffensen KD, Waldstrøm M, Jeppesen U, Brandslund I, Jakobsen A. Prediction of response to chemotherapy by ERCC1 immunohistochemistry and ERCC1 polymorphism in ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:702–10. [PubMed]
29. Lin K, Ye D, Xie X. Protein expression levels of excision repair cross-complementation group 1 and xeroderma pigmentosum D correlate with response to platinum-based chemotherapy in the patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2008;18:1007–12. [PubMed]
30. McGuire WP, Hoskins WJ, Brady MF, Kucera PR, Partridge EE, Look KY, et al. Cyclophosphamide and cisplatin compared with paclitaxel and cisplatin in patients with stage III and stage IV ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1–6. [PubMed]
31. Yu JJ, Mu C, Lee KB, Okamoto A, Reed EL, Bostick-Bruton F, et al. A nucleotide polymorphism in ERCC1 in human ovarian cancer cell lines and tumor tissues. Mutat Res. 1997;382:13–20. [PubMed]
32. Smith S, Su D, Rigault de la Longrais IA, Schwartz P, Puopolo M, Rutherford TJ, et al. ERCC1 genotype and phenotype in epithelial ovarian cancer identify patients likely to benefit from paclitaxel treatment in addition to platinum-based therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5172–9. [PubMed]
33. Kim HS, Kim MK, Chung HH, Kim JW, Park NH, Song YS, et al. Genetic polymorphisms affecting clinical outcomes in epithelial ovarian cancer patients treated with taxanes and platinum compounds: a Korean population-based study. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;113:264–9. [PubMed]
34. Khrunin AV, Moisseev A, Gorbunova V, Limborska S. Genetic polymorphisms and the efficacy and toxicity of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in ovarian cancer patients. Pharmacogenomics J. 2010;10:54–61. [PubMed]
35. Marsh S, Paul J, King CR, Gifford G, McLeod HL, Brown R. Pharmacogenetic assessment of toxicity and outcome after platinum plus taxane chemotherapy in ovarian cancer: the Scottish Randomised Trial in Ovarian Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:4528–35. [PubMed]