| Literature DB >> 18594524 |
S Suzuki1, K Sasajima, Y Sato, H Watanabe, T Matsutani, S Iida, M Hosone, T Tsukui, S Maeda, K Shimizu, T Tajiri.
Abstract
Tumour samples from 71 patients with stomach cancer, 41 patients with liver metastasis (group A) and 15 patients each in stages II-IV (group B) and stage I (group C) without liver metastasis were analysed. MAGE-A protein expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry using a 6C1 monoclonal antibody and MAGE-A10 mRNA expression was detected by highly sensitive in situ hybridisation using a cRNA probe. Expressions of MAGE-A protein and MAGE-A10 mRNA in group A were detected in 65.9 and 80.5%, respectively. Both protein and gene showed significantly higher expression in group A than those in groups B (6.7, 26.7%) and C (0, 0%) (P=0.0003, P=<0.0001, respectively). MAGE-A10 mRNA expression in liver metastasis was found in eight (88.9%) out of nine patients. The concordant rate between MAGE-A family protein expression and MAGE-A10 mRNA expression in the primary sites was 81.7% (P<0.0001). MAGE-A10 gene expression was associated with reduced survival duration. The results of this study suggest that MAGE-A10 is a possible target in active immunotherapy for advanced stomach cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18594524 PMCID: PMC2480964 DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604476
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Patients' characteristics in each group
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Median (range) | 70 (47–90) | 63 (43–77) | 66 (30–77) |
|
| |||
| Male/female | 37/4 | 11/4 | 10/5 |
|
| |||
| IA | 1 | — | 15 |
| IB | 1 | — | 0 |
| II | 5 | 8 | — |
| IIIA | 4 | 4 | — |
| IIIB | 6 | 2 | — |
| IV | 24 (23) | 1 | — |
| Histology | |||
| Differentiated | 25 | 4 | 8 |
| Undifferentiated | 16 | 11 | 7 |
Synchronous liver metastasis.
tub1, tub2.
por1, por2, sig.
Figure 1A case with synchronous liver metastasis (case 13). At the primary site, (A) MAGE family proteins were observed in the nuclei of tumour cells ( × 80). (B) High-power view of (A). They were dominantly and homogeneously localised in the nuclei of tumour cells ( × 200). (C) At the normal gastric mucosa, MAGE family proteins were not observed ( × 80). (D) MAGE-A10 mRNA signals were coincidently observed in MAGE family protein-positive tumour cells ( × 80). (E) High-power view of (D). They were abundant in the cytoplasm of tumour cells ( × 200). (F) At the normal gastric mucosa, MAGE-A10 mRNA signals were not found ( × 80).
Correlation of 6C1 and MAGE-A10 mRNA expression and rate of concordance in each group
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6C1 (+)/MAGE-A10 (+) | 25 | 1 | 0 |
| 6C1 (+)/MAGE-A10 (−) | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 6C1 (−)/MAGE-A10 (+) | 8 | 3 | 0 |
| 6C1 (−)/MAGE-A10 (−) | 6 | 11 | 15 |
| Total | 41 | 15 | 15 |
| Rate of concordance (%) | 75.6 | 80 | 100 |
Expression of 6C1 and MAGE-A10 mRNA in hepatectomised patients
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | M | + | + | + | + |
| 2 | M | − | + | − | + |
| 7 | S | + | + | + | + |
| 12 | S | + | + | + | + |
| 16 | M | + | + | + | − |
| 17 | S | + | + | + | + |
| 21 | S | − | + | + | + |
| 28 | S | + | + | + | + |
| 41 | S | − | + | − | + |
M=metachronous liver metastasis; S=synchronous liver metastasis.
Figure 2A case with synchronous hepatic metastasis (case 7). At the hepatic metastasis, (A) MAGE family proteins were observed in both nuclei and cytoplasm of tumour cells. No positive staining was observed in adjacent normal liver tissues ( × 80). (B) High-power view of (A). Intense and homogeneous staining was observed in almost all tumour cells ( × 200). (C) MAGE-A10 mRNA signals were coincidently observed in MAGE family protein-positive tumour cells ( × 80). (D) High-power view of (C). They were abundant in the cytoplasm of tumour cells ( × 200).
Figure 3Relationship between MAGE-A family protein (A) and MAGE-A10 mRNA (B) expression and survival duration in all cases.