CEBP Grants Metabolism
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Meyerhardt, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Fuchs, C. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Meyerhardt, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Fuchs, C. S.
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Vol. 14, 1402-1410, June 2005
© 2005 American Association for Cancer Research

Associations between Plasma Insulin-Like Growth Factor Proteins and C-Peptide and Quality of Life in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt1, Jeffrey A. Sloan2, Daniel J. Sargent2, Richard M. Goldberg3, Michael Pollak4, Roscoe F. Morton5, Ramesh K. Ramanathan6, Stephen K. Williamson7, Brian P. Findlay8 and Charles S. Fuchs1

1 Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; 2 Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Rochester, Minnesota; 3 Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; 4 Cancer Prevention Research Unit, Departments of Medicine and Oncology, Lady Davis Research Institute of Jewish General Hospital and McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 5 Iowa Oncology Research Association Community Clinical Oncology Program, Des Moines, Iowa; 6 Division of Medical Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 7 Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas; and 8 National Cancer Institute of Canada, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

Requests for reprints: Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115. Phone: 617-632-6855; Fax: 617-632-5370. E-mail: jmeyerhardt{at}partners.org


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Objective: Predictors of quality of life (QOL) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer are lacking. The insulin-like growth factor (IGF) family of proteins is associated with QOL in noncancer populations. We sought to study whether these proteins are associated with QOL in patients with colorectal cancer.

Method: We used a cohort of 526 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with combination chemotherapy. Plasma samples of IGF-I, IGF-II, IGF binding protein-3, and C-peptide were collected before initiation of chemotherapy. QOL was measured by the uniscale instrument and the Symptom Distress Scale at baseline and throughout treatment.

Results: Baseline plasma levels of IGF-I and IGF-II before initiation of chemotherapy were significantly associated with several important baseline QOL measures in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients with lower levels of IGF-I reported increased distress with regard to appearance, appetite, cough, and nausea intensity after adjustment for potential confounders. Similarly, decreased levels of IGF-II were predictive of worse quality related to appearance, appetite, fatigue, nausea frequency and intensity, pain frequency, and composite Symptom Distress Scale score. IGF binding protein-3 and C-peptide were not predictive of baseline QOL. Baseline biomarkers were not associated with subsequent changes in QOL during treatment. Higher body mass index was significantly associated with superior baseline QOL in several areas; nonetheless, the association of IGF-I and IGF-II with baseline QOL measures remained significant even after controlling for baseline body mass index.

Conclusion: Baseline plasma IGF-I and IGF-II are significantly associated with symptom distress. Whether this association is simply reflective of patient nutritional status and/or disease burden or represents an independent biological effect of IGFs on QOL remains uncertain. Nonetheless, these data suggest that molecular biomarkers may be useful predictors of QOL in cancer patients.


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Colorectal cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the United States and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths (1). Forty percent of patients will develop metastatic disease during the course of their disease, which generally is incurable. In these patients, treatment should be aimed at prolonging survival while maintaining and improving quality of life (QOL; ref. 2). Although the ability to directly measure QOL has improved (3), few studies have identified predictors of quality among patients with metastatic cancer (4).

Hyperinsulenima and the insulin-like growth factor (IGF) pathway may play a role in the development and pathogenesis of colorectal cancer (5). Insulin is a promoter of colorectal neoplasia in animal models (6), and elevated circulating insulin and C-peptide levels (an indicator of insulin production) have been prospectively associated to colon cancer risk (7-9). The actions of insulin may in part be regulated through the IGF system (5). IGF-I and IGF-II regulate cell proliferation and differentiation and inhibit apoptosis. The availability of free IGF-I and IGF-II for interaction with their receptor (primarily IGF-I receptor) is modulated by the IGF binding proteins (IGFBP), especially IGFBP-3. IGFBPs can have opposing actions to IGF-I and IGF-II in part by preventing a ligand-receptor interaction (10) as well as through direct inhibitory and apoptotic effects on target cells (11). In prospective studies, relatively high plasma IGF-I (12-14) and IGF-II (15, 16) and low IGFBP-3 (16) levels were associated with greater risk of colorectal cancer.

An association between IGF proteins and QOL has been reported in several settings. In a study of 270 healthy patients, Unden et al. showed that IGF-I levels correlated with social well-being, mental well-being, depression, self-esteem, social support, self-rated health, and coping in a subgroup of middle-aged subjects (17). In a small randomized study of 33 obese postmenopausal women on a diet and exercise program, Thompson et al. found that women treated with IGF-I with or without growth hormone, but not growth hormone alone or placebo, had significant improvements in depression and anxiety scores (18). In contrast, Trojan et al. did not observe any associations between IGF-I levels and QOL measurements among 112 patients with post–polio syndrome (19). The mechanism of the potential influence of the IGF proteins on QOL is unclear, although the IGF/growth hormone axis has been correlated with improved organ functions, such as those of the brain (20) and heart (21, 22) as well as bone density (23), which may lead to enhanced physical and psychological well-being. To our knowledge, no such studies have examined the relationship between this important family of proteins and QOL in cancer patients.

A randomized treatment trial of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer was recently reported comparing irinotecan-based and oxaliplatin-based combination therapies (24). During the trial, we prospectively collected plasma samples and self-reported measurements of QOL. The effect of the different chemotherapies on QOL (25) and the relationship between baseline IGF protein levels and treatment efficacy (26) will be reported separately. In this report, we will focus on the association between pretreatment plasma levels of these biomarkers and baseline QOL as well as changes in quality over the course of therapy.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Patient Population
Patients included in this study were drawn from a national, intergroup randomized trial of chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer [North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) 9741; ref. 24]. Full details of the treatment trial have been published previously (24). Briefly, patients were required to have histologically proven unresectable colorectal adenocarcinoma; a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤2; and adequate renal, liver, and bone marrow function. Exclusion criteria included prior therapy for advanced disease, baseline peripheral neuropathy or central nervous system disease, uncontrolled or severe comorbid illnesses, and baseline of more than three loose stools per day. Patients signed informed consent for participation in the trial and were given the option of inclusion in this companion study of plasma biomarkers. All patients were required to participate in the QOL portion of the study.

Plasma Biomarkers
Blood samples were collected on study registration at respective institutions and sent to the Mayo Central Laboratory for Clinical Trials (Rochester, MN). Whole-blood samples were cooled and sent by overnight delivery to the laboratory. The stability of these biomarkers during the period of transport has been documented previously (27). Samples were centrifuged, divided, and frozen before use. IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-3, and C-peptide levels were assayed in the laboratory of Dr. Michael Pollak using ELISAs with reagents provided by Diagnostic Systems Laboratory (Webster, TX). This methodology is more reproducible than and highly correlated (r = 0.98) with a RIA technique employed previously (28). Each patient had repeated measurements of each of biomarkers, with intraindividual correlations ranging from 0.98 to 0.99. Blinded quality control samples are included in each batch so that the mean intrapair coefficients can be assessed. In previous studies, the mean intrabatch coefficients of variation calculated from the quality-control samples were 7%, 5%, 9%, and 10%, respectively, for IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-3, and C-peptide (9, 13, 29, 30).

The IGF ratio was defined as the molar ratio of the sum of IGF-I and IGF-II divided by IGFBP-3. The ratio serves as a surrogate for free or potentially bioavailable IGF-I.

QOL Instruments
Patients participating in the treatment trial were requested to complete several instruments measuring various aspects of patient QOL (Figs. 1 and 2). Protocol specifications were to obtain baseline QOL and then follow-up assessments every 12 weeks and at study completion for both instruments. The uniscale single-item instrument is a linear analogue measure of overall QOL that has been used in numerous clinical settings (31). It is valid and practical for patients with advanced colorectal cancer in community-based clinical trial settings (32). To obtain further details in other domains, the McCorkle and Young Symptom Distress Scale (SDS) was used (33). The SDS scale was developed for cancer patients and has been proven reliable and valid as well as prognostic for survival, although it has not been specifically tested in a cohort of only colorectal cancer patients (34-37). The SDS consists of 13 symptoms measuring degrees of distress related to appearance, appetite, breathing, bowel habits, cough, concentration, insomnia, fatigue, nausea frequency, nausea intensity, outlook, pain frequency, and pain intensity. For each symptom, five answers are possible (with a higher numerical response indicating a worse quality for that symptom). Due to reduced numbers of patient responses, the fourth and fifth lowest answers were collapsed into a single category. Each of the items was analyzed as separate individual constructs as well as a summated psychometrically validated scale, normalized to a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 being the worst QOL and 100 being the best QOL.



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 1. Uniscale instrument.

 


View larger version (46K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Figure 2. McCorkle and Young SDS (33).

 
Statistical Analysis
In total, 1,379 patients enrolled in NCCTG 9741 after the incorporation of an amendment to collect blood samples for companion biomarker studies. Of this cohort, 526 patients provided blood samples for these analyses; ~80% of these patients completed at least portions of one of the two QOL. Baseline responses from the QOL instruments and changes in symptoms were studied in relationship to plasma levels of IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-3, and C-peptide. Only patients who completed the baseline QOL instruments before starting chemotherapy were included in the baseline analyses of the uniscale and SDS scores; patients with missing values at baseline were excluded from that particular symptom score. Changes in symptoms were reported as the maximum decline or improvement from the baseline measurement over the course of participation in the trial; only patients completing the baseline instruments and at least one additional QOL assessment for an individual construct were included in each analyses. Trends for significance were measured by linear regression, with the dependent and independent variables treated as continuous variables. To satisfy the normality assumption, C-peptide was log transformed when modeling. Additionally, we adjusted analyses for age, gender, baseline performance status, and body mass index (BMI). For studies on IGF-I and IGF-II, we adjusted for IGFBP-3 and vice versa. Multivariate models were tested for collinearity and did not meet Belsey-Kuh-Welch criteria for collinearity. Further, for changes in symptoms, we adjusted for treatment arm. All statistical analyses used the SAS program package version 8.02 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Ps < 0.05 were used to denote statistical significance; all Ps reported are two sided.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Baseline Characteristics
We compared baseline characteristics of the overall cohort of patients who enrolled in the treatment trial with the subsets of patients participating in the biomarker studies and those completing QOL assessments (Table 1). We did not detect any appreciable differences between these subgroups. Further, patients experienced similar overall survival at a median follow-up of 20.4 months.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Baseline characteristics of subgroups of NCCTG 9741

 
Correlations among Plasma Markers, BMI, and Performance Status
We examined the relationships among the IGF axis biomarkers, C-peptide, BMI, and baseline performance status (Table 2). We defined correlation coefficients of >0.6 as strong, between 0.3 and 0.6 as moderate, and <0.3 as weak or nonexistent (38). Using Spearman correlations, we found strong correlations among IGF-I, IGF-II, and IGFBP-3 but weak or no correlations for these proteins and either C-peptide, BMI, or performance status. C-peptide and BMI were marginally correlated with each other, whereas neither C-peptide nor BMI were associated with baseline performance status.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. Spearman correlations among baseline biomarkers, BMI, and performance status

 
Effect of BMI
We examined the influence of initial BMI on baseline QOL. Whereas increasing BMI is predictive of worse QOL in noncancer populations (39, 40), lower BMI can also be predictive of increased cancer burden in patients (41, 42). In this cohort of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, increasing baseline BMI was indeed predictive of improved perceptions of appearance, appetite, bowel function, and overall SDS score (Table 3). These findings remained unchanged after adjustment for age, gender, and baseline performance status. Baseline BMI was not predictive of subsequent changes in QOL while patients were treated on the clinical trial (Table 4).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Relationship between baseline QOL and BMI

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4. Association between biomarkers and mean maximum decline per patient of QOL symptoms

 
Biomarkers and Baseline QOL
We examined the association between baseline plasma levels of IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-3, and C-peptide and baseline measures of QOL. We limited these analyses to patients who completed a QOL assessment before starting chemotherapy to understand the predictive value of these proteins toward the well-being of patients at presentation with metastatic disease. For each individual construct in the SDS, there were between 312 and 418 patients included. The median values of these proteins based on their response to the instruments are presented in Table 5. For the total SDS and uniscale scores, patients were divided into quartiles based on their responses.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 5. Relationship between baseline QOL and median plasma biomarkers

 
In unadjusted analyses, higher levels of IGF-I were significantly related with improved QOL related to appearance, appetite, breathing, bowel function, fatigue, nausea frequency and intensity, and uniscale and total SDS. After adjustments for age, gender, IGFBP-3, and baseline performance status, the associations with appearance, appetite, and nausea intensity remained statistically significant. Additionally, after multivariate regression, distress from cough symptoms was also associated with IGF-I. These relationships remained significant when BMI was added into the model.

Similarly, IGF-II levels were associated with perceptions of appearance, appetite, breathing, bowel function, concentration, fatigue, nausea frequency and intensity, pain frequency, and uniscale score and total SDS. Appearance, appetite, fatigue, nausea frequency and intensity, pain frequency, and total SDS remained significant after adjustment for the above-listed potential confounders. The IGF ratio, incorporating IGF-I and IGF-II and adjusted for IGFBP-3 binding, showed similar results to IGF-II, with positive associations to appearance, appetite, breathing, fatigue, nausea frequency and intensity, and SDS composite score.

In contrast, IGFBP-3 and C-peptide were not associated with any of individual constructs or cumulative scores particularly after adjustments for potential confounders.

We considered the possibility that the association between plasma IGF-I and IGF-II and baseline QOL measures may simply reflect either individual patient disease burden or nutritional status. We therefore repeated our analyses after excluding patients with a baseline BMI of <21 kg/m2 or a baseline performance status of 2. Among the remaining 347 patients, the associations between plasma IGF-I and IGF-II and baseline QOL measures remained essentially unchanged, albeit attenuated due to decrease in sample size. In this "healthier" cohort, the adjusted test for trend remained significant between IGF-I and appearance (P = 0.02), appetite (P = 0.01), and cough (P = 0.05) and between IGF-II and appearance (P = 0.006), appetite (P = 0.002), fatigue (P = 0.04), nausea frequency (P = 0.001), nausea intensity (P = 0.04), and SDS composite (P = 0.005).

Biomarkers and Change in QOL
We examined whether these baseline biomarkers would predict subsequent changes in QOL during treatment for metastatic disease. As a primary analysis, we examined maximum decline in each of the QOL constructs from baseline, limiting the analyses only to patients with at least two measurements. None of the biomarkers nor BMI predicted declines in QOL as measured by the SDS composite and uniscale (Table 4). Similarly, there were no associations between baseline IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBP-3, IGF ratio, C-peptide, or BMI and any of the individual SDS constructs (P > 0.05). Similarly, no associations with improvements in QOL were detected (data not shown). Finally, there were no relationships between the IGF proteins or C-peptide and either declines or improvements of at least 10 points in the uniscale or SDS composite score within the same patient, which have been considered to be clinically meaningful (ref. 43; P > 0.05, all {chi}2).


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
Using a cohort of patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, we showed that lower levels of plasma IGF-I and IGF-II are associated with greater baseline symptom distress before initiation of chemotherapy. In contrast, baseline levels of IGFBP-3 and C-peptide were not associated with measures of QOL. None of the baseline biomarkers were associated with subsequent declines or improvements of symptoms while being treated with first-line chemotherapy. Finally, higher baseline BMI was associated with improved baseline QOL and diminished symptom distress.

Several potential mechanisms may explain these findings. IGF-I and IGF-II may have direct beneficial biological effects on patients with cancer that lead to improved indicators of QOL. Indirect support of this hypothesis is seen in patients with growth hormone deficiency treated with growth hormone replacement, where IGF-I levels increase and QOL improves (44, 45). Administration of recombinant IGF-I improved QOL in certain chronic disease states (46), although not others (47, 48). Conversely, plasma levels of IGF-I and IGF-II may be a reflection of disease burden and nutritional status that are a consequence of disseminated cancer. IGF-I, IGF-II, and C-peptide levels are influenced by malnutrition (49-52). Notably, our findings for IGF-I and IGF-II did not change after controlling for baseline BMI and did not change after excluding leaner patients and those with an impaired performance status. Further, although C-peptide levels have been associated with nutritional status (53, 54) C-peptide was not associated with any QOL measure in the current analysis.

Preliminary results from this cohort of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer show that higher IGFBP-3 levels are associated with increased likelihood of tumor response to chemotherapy and longer time to progression and overall survival (26). In contrast, IGF-I was not correlated with response rate, but increased levels were correlated with prolonged time to progression and overall survival. We believe our data support these findings, in that higher IGF-I may be reflective of a "better host" (55, 56) who experiences superior indicators of QOL, whereas IGFBP-3 may have an independent effect beyond the state of the patient. This explanation is purely speculative and will require further study in colorectal cancer.

Our observation that increased BMI was associated with an improved QOL likely reflects the fact that cancer patients with lower BMIs may have suffered weight loss before diagnosis, which is predictive of worse outcomes in colorectal cancer (57). Additionally, other studies have shown that obese patients have fewer side effects from chemotherapy (58, 59), which may be a consequence of their improved QOL at baseline.

Several limitations should be noted in this study. Although baseline BMI was recorded in this study, we did not collect information on weight loss that may have occurred immediately before study enrollment. Thus, residual confounding by cachexia associated with the diagnosis of metastatic colorectal cancer cannot be excluded. In addition, both protein levels and QOL may be affected by other physical and psychological factors affecting on individual patients before enrollment in a clinical trial, such as morbidity from recent surgery and physical symptoms related to the location of metastases. Although inclusion of performance status in our regression model may partially adjust for such differences, such unaccounted factors may not be adequately controlled for in our analyses. Protein levels were only measured at the start of chemotherapy, and the effect of change over time of these growth factors on QOL could not be assessed. However, one study of women receiving chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer showed that IGF-I did not change on therapy, whereas IGFBP-3 only modestly decreased (60).

As with other QOL studies, missing data can bias results. In our primary analyses of baseline IGF proteins and C-peptide, we only included patients who completed the QOL instruments before starting chemotherapy. However, if sicker patients with reduced QOL did not complete the survey, our results would be biased toward the null and we find multiple positive associations. Additionally, no differences in survival were observed for patients who did or did not complete the QOL assessments and provided blood sample. Finally, multiple comparisons can lead to positive relationships by chance. In the baseline analyses, we examined six markers against 15 QOL constructs (90 comparisons). By chance alone, one might anticipate four to five positive associations; however, we showed 22 significant associations. Moreover, no associations were found with either C-peptide or IGFBP-3, which could be expected by random chance.

We did not detect a difference in declines or improvements of QOL based on any of the protein levels. These analyses may be limited by differential completion of follow-up QOL assessments, which may have biased the results toward the null. However, other such longitudinal studies in cancer patients have also had decreasing compliance with completion of follow-up instruments and were able to show associations between outcome and changes in QOL (61-64). Moreover, because we measured IGF proteins only at baseline, we were not able to add potential changes in those levels in our longitudinal models.

There is a growing interest in the IGF pathway as a potential target for cancer therapy (65). Although these data cannot address the merits of such a strategy, we would advocate close observation of QOL when testing such agents.

Genetic variants in folate metabolism were recently shown to be associated with QOL indicators in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (4). We believe that these findings, in conjunction with the current study, begin to provide a link between molecular biology and QOL research. There is a strong interest to identify molecular biomarkers and genetic polymorphisms to tailor drugs for individual patients. In addition to predicting prognosis and response to therapy, such biological markers may also allow clinicians to incorporate QOL considerations when deciding on a course of treatment.


   Acknowledgments
 
We thank Erin M. Green for her assistance with data management and Paul J. Limburg, M.D., for his helpful review of the article.


   Footnotes
 
Grant support: National Cancer Institute grant 1K07CA097992-01A1 (K07 award) and American Society of Clinical Oncology career development award (J.A. Meyerhardt) and NIH grants CA25224, CA32102, CA38926, CA21115, and CA77202, Pharmacia Corp. (now Pfizer Oncology), and Sanofi-Synthelabo (now Sanofi-Aventis; NCCTG 9741).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Received 11/22/04; revised 2/10/05; accepted 3/21/05.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 2005;55:10–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelines. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:671–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Conroy T, Bleiberg H, Glimelius B. Quality of life in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: what has been learnt? Eur J Cancer 2003;39:287–94.
  4. Sloan JA, McLeod H, Sargent D, et al. Preliminary evidence of relationship between genetic markers and oncology patient quality of life (QOL) [abstract no. 5]. Proc Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;23.
  5. Sandhu MS, Dunger DB, Giovannucci EL. Insulin, insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), IGF binding proteins, their biologic interactions, and colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:972–80.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Tran TT, Medline A, Bruce WR. Insulin promotion of colon tumors in rats. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1996;5:1013–5.[Abstract]
  7. Kaaks R, Toniolo P, Akhmedkhanov A, et al. Serum C-peptide, insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF-binding proteins, and colorectal cancer risk in women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1592–600.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Schoen RE, Tangen CM, Kuller LH, et al. Increased blood glucose and insulin, body size, and incident colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1147–54.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Ma J, Giovannucci E, Pollak M, et al. A prospective study of plasma C-peptide and colorectal cancer risk in men. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:546–53.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Rechler MM. Growth inhibition by insulin-like growth factor (IGF) binding protein-3—what's IGF got to do with it? Endocrinology 1997;138:2645–7.[Free Full Text]
  11. Rajah R, Valentinis B, Cohen P. Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-binding protein-3 induces apoptosis and mediates the effects of transforming growth factor-ß1 on programmed cell death through a p53- and IGF-independent mechanism. J Biol Chem 1997;272:12181–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Ma J, Pollak MN, Giovannucci E, et al. Prospective study of colorectal cancer risk in men and plasma levels of insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I and IGF-binding protein-3. J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:620–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Giovannucci E, Pollak MN, Platz EA, et al. A prospective study of plasma insulin-like growth factor-1 and binding protein-3 and risk of colorectal neoplasia in women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000;9:345–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Palmqvist R, Hallmans G, Rinaldi S, et al. Plasma insulin-like growth factor 1, insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3, and risk of colorectal cancer: a prospective study in northern Sweden. Gut 2002;50:642–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Hunt KJ, Toniolo P, Akhmedkhanov A, et al. Insulin-like growth factor II and colorectal cancer risk in women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2002;11:901–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Probst-Hensch NM, Yuan JM, Stanczyk FZ, et al. IGF-1, IGF-II and IGFBP-3 in prediagnostic serum: association with colorectal cancer in a cohort of Chinese men in Shanghai. Br J Cancer 2001;85:1695–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Unden AL, Elofsson S, Knox S, Lewitt MS, Brismar K. IGF-I in a normal population: relation to psychosocial factors. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2002;57:793–803.[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Thompson JL, Butterfield GE, Gylfadottir UK, et al. Effects of human growth hormone, insulin-like growth factor I, and diet and exercise on body composition of obese postmenopausal women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1998;83:1477–84.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Trojan DA, Collet J, Pollak MN, et al. Serum insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) does not correlate positively with isometric strength, fatigue, and quality of life in post-polio syndrome. J Neurol Sci 2001;182:107–15.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Aleman A, Verhaar HJ, De Haan EH, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-I and cognitive function in healthy older men. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84:471–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Ruotolo G, Bavenholm P, Brismar K, et al. Serum insulin-like growth factor-I level is independently associated with coronary artery disease progression in young male survivors of myocardial infarction: beneficial effects of bezafibrate treatment. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;35:647–54.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Spallarossa P, Brunelli C, Minuto F, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-I and angiographically documented coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1996;77:200–2.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Lloyd ME, Hart DJ, Nandra D, et al. Relation between insulin-like growth factor-I concentrations, osteoarthritis, bone density, and fractures in the general population: the Chingford study. Ann Rheum Dis 1996;55:870–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Goldberg RM, Sargent DJ, Morton RF, et al. A randomized controlled trial of fluorouracil plus leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin combinations in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:23–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Goldberg R, Morton R, Sargent D, et al. N9741: oxaliplatin (oxal) or CPT-11 + 5-fluorouracil (5FU)/leucovorin (LV) or oxal + CPT-11 in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Initial toxicity and response data from a GI Intergroup study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol Abstr 511. Orlando, FL, 2002.
  26. Fuchs C, Pollak M, Sargent DJ, et al. Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-1), IGF binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3), and outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC): results from Intergroup Trial N9741 [abstract no. 3521]. Proc Meet Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;23.
  27. Hankinson SE, Willett WC, Colditz GA, et al. Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I and risk of breast cancer. Lancet 1998;351:1393–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Pollak M, Costantino J, Polychronakos C, et al. Effect of tamoxifen on serum insulinlike growth factor I levels in stage I breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990;82:1693–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Giovannucci E, Pollak M, Liu Y, et al. Nutritional predictors of insulin-like growth factor I and their relationships to cancer in men. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:84–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Liu Y, Willett WC. Height, predictors of C-peptide and cancer risk in men. Int J Epidemiol 2004;33:217–25.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Sloan JA, Aaronson N, Cappelleri JC, Fairclough DL, Varricchio C. Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. Mayo Clin Proc 2002;77:479–87.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Sloan JA, Loprinzi CL, Kuross SA, et al. Randomized comparison of four tools measuring overall quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:3662–73.[Abstract]
  33. McCorkle R, Young K. Development of a symptom distress scale. Cancer Nurs 1978;1:373–8.[Medline]
  34. McCorkle R, Quint-Benoliel J. Symptom distress, current concerns and mood disturbance after diagnosis of life-threatening disease. Soc Sci Med 1983;17:431–8.
  35. McCorkle R, Benoliel JQ, Donaldson G, et al. A randomized clinical trial of home nursing care for lung cancer patients. Cancer 1989;64:1375–82.[CrossRef][Medline]
  36. Peruselli C, Camporesi E, Colombo AM, et al. Quality-of-life assessment in a home care program for advanced cancer patients: a study using the Symptom Distress Scale. J Pain Symptom Manage 1993;8:306–11.[CrossRef][Medline]
  37. Degner LF, Sloan JA. Symptom distress in newly diagnosed ambulatory cancer patients and as a predictor of survival in lung cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 1995;10:423–31.[CrossRef][Medline]
  38. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
  39. Yan LL, Daviglus ML, Liu K, et al. BMI and health-related quality of life in adults 65 years and older. Obes Res 2004;12:69–76.[Medline]
  40. Hassan MK, Joshi AV, Madhavan SS, Amonkar MM. Obesity and health-related quality of life: a cross-sectional analysis of the US population. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2003;27:1227–32.[CrossRef][Medline]
  41. Vigano A, Bruera E, Jhangri GS, et al. Clinical survival predictors in patients with advanced cancer. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:861–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Knox LS, Crosby LO, Feurer ID, et al. Energy expenditure in malnourished cancer patients. Ann Surg 1983;197:152–62.[Medline]
  43. Sloan JA, Dueck A. Issues for statisticians in conducting analyses and translating results for quality of life end points in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat 2004;14:73–96.[CrossRef][Medline]
  44. Carroll PV, Littlewood R, Weissberger AJ, et al. The effects of two doses of replacement growth hormone on the biochemical, body composition and psychological profiles of growth hormone-deficient adults. Eur J Endocrinol 1997;137:146–53.[Abstract]
  45. Soares CN, Musolino NR, Cunha Neto M, et al. Impact of recombinant human growth hormone (RH-GH) treatment on psychiatric, neuropsychological and clinical profiles of GH deficient adults. A placebo-controlled trial. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 1999;57:182–9.[Medline]
  46. Lai EC, Felice KJ, Festoff BW, et al. Effect of recombinant human insulin-like growth factor-I on progression of ALS. A placebo-controlled study. The North America ALS/IGF-I Study Group. Neurology 1997;49:1621–30.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Waters D, Danska J, Hardy K, et al. Recombinant human growth hormone, insulin-like growth factor 1, and combination therapy in AIDS-associated wasting. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1996;125:865–72.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Lee PD, Pivarnik JM, Bukar JG, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of combined insulin-like growth factor I and low dose growth hormone therapy for wasting associated with human immunodeficiency virus infection. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1996;81:2968–75.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Thissen JP, Ketelslegers JM, Underwood LE. Nutritional regulation of the insulin-like growth factors. Endocr Rev 1994;15:80–101.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Smith WJ, Underwood LE, Clemmons DR. Effects of caloric or protein restriction on insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) and IGF-binding proteins in children and adults. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1995;80:443–9.[Abstract]
  51. Heald AH, Cade JE, Cruickshank JK, et al. The influence of dietary intake on the insulin-like growth factor (IGF) system across three ethnic groups: a population-based study. Public Health Nutr 2003;6:175–80.[CrossRef][Medline]
  52. Soliman AT, Hassan AE, Aref MK, et al. Serum insulin-like growth factors I and II concentrations and growth hormone and insulin responses to arginine infusion in children with protein-energy malnutrition before and after nutritional rehabilitation. Pediatr Res 1986;20:1122–30.[Medline]
  53. Dean DJ, Gazdag AC, Wetter TJ, Cartee GD. Comparison of the effects of 20 days and 15 months of calorie restriction on male Fischer 344 rats. Aging (Milano) 1998;10:303–7.[Medline]
  54. Zuniga-Guajardo S, Garfinkel PE, Zinman B. Changes in insulin sensitivity and clearance in anorexia nervosa. Metabolism 1986;35:1096–100.[CrossRef][Medline]
  55. Juul A, Bang P, Hertel NT, et al. Serum insulin-like growth factor-I in 1030 healthy children, adolescents, and adults: relation to age, sex, stage of puberty, testicular size, and body mass index. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1994;78:744–52.[Abstract]
  56. Juul A, Scheike T, Davidsen M, Gyllenborg J, Jorgensen T. Low serum insulin-like growth factor I is associated with increased risk of ischemic heart disease: a population-based case-control study. Circulation 2002;106:939–44.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Mitry E, Douillard JY, Van Cutsem E, et al. Predictive factors of survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: an individual data analysis of 602 patients included in irinotecan phase III trials. Ann Oncol 2004;15:1013–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  58. Meyerhardt JA, Tepper JE, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Impact of body mass index on outcomes and treatment-related toxicity in patients with stage II and III rectal cancer: findings from Intergroup Trial 0114. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:648–57.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  59. Rosner GL, Hargis JB, Hollis DR, et al. Relationship between toxicity and obesity in women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: results from cancer and leukemia group B study 8541. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:3000–8.[Abstract]
  60. Holdaway IM, Mason BH, Lethaby AE, et al. Serum insulin-like growth factor-I and insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 following chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. ANZ J Surg 2003;73:905–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  61. Coates A, Gebski V, Signorini D, et al. Prognostic value of quality-of-life scores during chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. Australian New Zealand Breast Cancer Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 1992;10:1833–8.[Abstract]
  62. Coates AS, Hurny C, Peterson HF, et al. Quality-of-life scores predict outcome in metastatic but not early breast cancer. International Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3768–74.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  63. Poon MA, O'Connell MJ, Moertel CG, et al. Biochemical modulation of fluorouracil: evidence of significant improvement of survival and quality of life in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1989;7:1407–18.[Abstract]
  64. Tannock IF, Osoba D, Stockler MR, et al. Chemotherapy with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisone alone for symptomatic hormone-resistant prostate cancer: a Canadian randomized trial with palliative end points. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:1756–64.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  65. Jerome L, Shiry L, Leyland-Jones B. Anti-insulin-like growth factor strategies in breast cancer. Semin Oncol 2004;31:54–63.



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Endocr Relat CancerHome page
R. Gallego, J. Codony-Servat, X. Garcia-Albeniz, E. Carcereny, R. Longaron, A. Oliveras, M. Tosca, J. M. Auge, P. Gascon, and J. Maurel
Serum IGF-I, IGFBP-3, and matrix metalloproteinase-7 levels and acquired chemo-resistance in advanced colorectal cancer
Endocr. Relat. Cancer, March 1, 2009; 16(1): 311 - 317.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
C. S. Fuchs, R. M. Goldberg, D. J. Sargent, J. A. Meyerhardt, B. M. Wolpin, E. M. Green, H. C. Pitot, and M. Pollak
Plasma Insulin-like Growth Factors, Insulin-like Binding Protein-3, and Outcome in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results from Intergroup Trial N9741
Clin. Cancer Res., December 15, 2008; 14(24): 8263 - 8269.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Meyerhardt, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Fuchs, C. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Meyerhardt, J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Fuchs, C. S.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online