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

Jia, Min; Gao, Xu; Zhang, Yan; Hoffmeister, Michael; Brenner, Hermann

doi:10.1186/s13148-016-0191-8

Clinical Epigenetics

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	1–2/5^a	0/5	13.9 %
	Donada (2013) [40]	+	+	+	+	+								≥3/5	1–2/5^a	0/5	18.3 %
	Samadder (2013) [30]	+	+	+	+	+								≥3/5	1–2/5^a	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	1–4/8^a	0/8	30.0 %
	Bae (2013) [28]	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+					≥5/8	1–4/8^a	0/8	6.4 %
	Kim (2013) [29]	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+					≥5/8	1–4/8^a	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 %

^aCIMP was classified into three categories, but for analysis of prognosis only two categories were used (CIMP-H vs. CIMP-L/N)
^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
^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
^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

Back to article page

ISSN: 1868-7083

Contact us

Submission enquiries: avalyn.villar@springernature.com
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com