Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 CIMP definitions and prevalence in studies on colorectal cancer prognosis

From: Different definitions of CpG island methylator phenotype and outcomes of colorectal cancer: a systematic review

Definition First author (year) Common CIMP genes Other CIMP genes CIMP category CIMP+/-H prevalence
               CIMP+ CIMP−
   CACNA1G IGF2 NEUROG1 RUNX3 SOCS1 CRABP1 MLH1 p16 MINT1 MINT2 MINT31   CIMP-H CIMP-L CIMP-N
D 1 Samowitz (2005) [13]        + + + + +   ≥2/5 0–1/5 24.6 %
  Lee (2008) [16]        + + + + +   ≥2/5 0–1/5 31.3 %
  Samowitz (2009) [20]        + + + + +   ≥2/5 0–1/5 11.9 %
  Ju (2011) [38]        + + + + +   ≥2/5 0–1/5 24.4 %
D 2 Kalady (2009) [17] + + + + +         ≥3/5 0–2/5 21.8 %
  Sanchez (2009) [21] + + + + +         ≥3/5 0–2/5 21.2 %
  Min (2011) [25] + + + + +         ≥3/5 1–2/5a 0/5 13.9 %
  Donada (2013) [40] + + + + +         ≥3/5 1–2/5a 0/5 18.3 %
  Samadder (2013) [30] + + + + +         ≥3/5 1–2/5a 0/5 29.7 %
  Simons (2013) [31] + + + + +         ≥3/5 0–2/5 Not report
  Cleven (2014) [32] + + + + +         ≥3/5 0–2/5 Not report
D 3 Bae (2011) [23] + + + + + + + +      ≥5/8 0–4/8 32.0 %
  Rhee (2012) [26] + + + + + + + +      ≥5/8 1–4/8a 0/8 30.0 %
  Bae (2013) [28] + + + + + + + +      ≥5/8 1–4/8a 0/8 6.4 %
  Kim (2013) [29] + + + + + + + +      ≥5/8 1–4/8a 0/8 29.1 %
  Kim (2009)b [18] + + + + + + + +      ≥5/8 1–4/8 0/8 11.6 %
D 4 Kim (2009)c [18] + + + + + + + +      ≥6/8 1–5/8 0/8 7.5 %
  Ogino (2009) [19] + + + + + + + +      ≥6/8 1–5/8 0/8 19.4 %
  Dahlin (2010) [8] + + + + + + + +      ≥6/8 1–5/8 0/8 14.2 % 11.4 %d
  Dahlin (2011) [24] + + + + + + + +      ≥6/8 1–5/8 0/8 12.3 %
D 5 Rijnsoever (2002) [12]         +   +   MDR1 ≥2/3 0–1/3 32.0 %
D 6 Ward (2003) [37]         + + + + MINT12 ≥4/5 0–3/5 15.4 %
D 7 Kakar (2008) [15]        + + +   + RASSF2, ID4, HIC ≥3/7 0–2/7 23.2 %
  Kakar (2012) [39]        + + +   + RASSF2, ID4, HIC ≥3/7 0–2/7 48.5 %
D 8 Jover (2011) [5] +   + + +   +       ≥3/5 0–2/5 29.5 %
D 9 Hokazono (2014) [33] +        +     ID4, MGMT, TIMP3, TSP1, CDH13, HCAD, GATA5, RSASF1A, HLTF, HRK, KIRREL2, SLC13A5, TSLC1 ≥7/15 1–6/15 0/15 18.3 %
D 10 Wang (2014) [36] +       + + +    MGMT, P14ARF ≥3/5 0–2/5 24.0 %
D 11 Barault (2008) [14]        + + + + +   ≥4/5 1–3/5 0/5 16.7 %
D 12 Yagi (2010) [22] + + + + +   + + + + + MINT17 ≥6/11 1–5/11 0/11 11.4 %
D 13 Zlobec (2012) [27] +   +    + + +      ≥4/5 1–3/5 0/5 7.1 %
D 14 Li (2014) [34]     +    + + +   + MGMT, APC ≥4/7 1–3/7 0/7 13.1 %
  1. aCIMP was classified into three categories, but for analysis of prognosis only two categories were used (CIMP-H vs. CIMP-L/N)
  2. bCIMP classification 1 of the study. CIMP-H was defined as ≥5/8 methylated markers, CIMP-L as 1/8 to 4/8 methylated markers, and CIMP-N as 0/8 methylated markers
  3. cCIMP classification 2 of the study. CIMP-H was defined as ≥6/8 methylated markers, CIMP-L as 1/8 to 5/8 methylated markers, and CIMP-N as 0/8 methylated markers
  4. dCIMP+ or CIMP-H prevalence is 14.2 % in NSHDS study and 11.4 % in CRUMS study. MSHDS and CRUMS are names of two study included in Dahlin et al. study