| Literature DB >> 18700042 |
Xian-Zhi Guo1, Ge Zhang, Jun-Ye Wang, Wan-Li Liu, Fang Wang, Ju-Qin Dong, Li-Hua Xu, Jing-Yan Cao, Li-Bing Song, Mu-Sheng Zeng.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many kinetochore proteins have been shown to be associated with human cancers. The aim of the present study was to clarify the expression of Centromere protein H (CENP-H), one of the fundamental components of the human active kinetochore, in esophageal carcinoma and its correlation with clinicopathological features.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18700042 PMCID: PMC2535782 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-8-233
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Clinicopathologic characteristics of patient samples and expression of CENP-H in esophageal carcinoma.
| Characteristics | n(%) |
| (n = 171) | |
| Gender | |
| Male | 129(75.4) |
| Female | 42(24.6) |
| Age(y) | |
| ≥ 60 | 103(60.2) |
| <60 | 68(39.8) |
| Stage | |
| I | 10(5.8) |
| II a | 75(43.9) |
| II b | 14(8.2) |
| III | 63(36.8) |
| IV | 9(5.3) |
| Histological classification | |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 171(100.0) |
| Histological differentiation | |
| Well | 55(32.2) |
| Moderate | 72(42.1) |
| Poor | 44(25.7) |
| Tumor diameter | |
| ≥ 40 mm | 72(42.1) |
| <40 mm | 99(57.9) |
| Depth of invasion | |
| Submucosa | 12(7.0) |
| Muscularis propria | 58(33.9) |
| Adventitia | 101(59.1) |
| pT classification | |
| T1 | 13(7.6) |
| T2 | 46(26.9) |
| T3 | 106(62.0) |
| T4 | 6(3.5) |
| pN classification | |
| YES | 77(45.0) |
| NO | 94(55.0) |
| pMetastasis | |
| YES | 9(5.3) |
| NO | 162(94.7) |
| Vital status(at follow-up) | |
| Alive | 59(34.5) |
| Death because of esophageal carcinoma | 109(63.7) |
| Death because of unknown cancer or other than esophageal carcinoma | 3(1.8) |
| Expression of CENP-H | |
| Negative | 44(25.7) |
| Positive | 127(74.3) |
| Low expression | 54(31.6) |
| High expression | 73(42.7) |
Figure 1Expression analysis of CENP-H mRNA and protein in an esophageal immortalization cell line (NE3) and 4 esophageal carcinoma cell lines 108CA, Kyse 140, Eca-109 and TE-1 by reverse transcription-PCR and Western blotting. A normal esophageal tissue was used as a control.
Figure 2Expression analysis of CENP-H mRNA and protein in normal esophageal tissues and esophageal carcinoma cancer tissues by reverse transcription PCR (A) and Western blots (B). A. Reverse transcription PCR results in 8 pairs of esophageal tissues. B. Western blots results in 8 pairs of esophageal tissues. (N means normal and T means tumor). C. The density ratio of western blots results by Quantity one.
Figure 3Expression analysis of CENP-H protein by immunohistochemistry. CENP-H expression was mainly localized within nuclei of tumor cells, and diffuse staining was observed in some tumor cells. CENP-H is not expressed in normal epithelial cells. A and B Staining of CENP-H in normal esophageal epithelial tissue (arrow, normal epithelial cells). C and D, low expression of CENP-H in esophageal carcinoma tissues (200 and 400, respectively). E, F, G and H, high expression of CENP-H in esophageal carcinoma tissues (200 and 400, respectively).
Correlation between the clinicopathologic features and expression of CENP-H protein
| CENP-H | |||
| Characteristics | Low expression | High expression | P |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 67(51.9) | 62(48.1) | 0.013 |
| Female | 31(73.8) | 11(26.2) | |
| Age(y) | |||
| ≥ 60 | 58(56.3) | 45(43.7) | 0.747 |
| <60 | 40(58.8) | 28(41.2) | |
| Stage | |||
| I | 9(90.0) | 1(10.0) | |
| II a | 46(61.3) | 29(38.7) | |
| II b | 9 (64.3) | 5(35.7) | 0.023* |
| III | 30(47.6) | 33(52.4) | |
| IV | 4(44.4) | 5(55.6) | |
| Histological differentiation | |||
| Well | 30(54.5) | 25(45.5) | |
| Moderate | 42(58.3) | 30(41.7) | 0.637 |
| Poor | 26(59.1) | 18(40.9) | |
| Tumor diameter | |||
| ≥ 40 mm | 37(51.4) | 35(48.6) | 0.184 |
| <40 mm | 61(61.6) | 38(38.4) | |
| Depth of invasion | |||
| Submucosa | 8(66.7) | 4(33.3) | 0.212 |
| Muscularis propria | 36(60.7) | 22(39.3) | |
| Adventitia | 54(53.8) | 47(46.2) | |
| pT classification | |||
| T1~T2 | 41(69.5) | 18(30.5) | 0.019 |
| T3~T4 | 57(50.9) | 55(49.1) | |
| pN classification | |||
| YES | 38(49.4) | 39(50.6) | 0.057 |
| NO | 60(63.8) | 34(36.2) | |
| pMetastasis | |||
| YES | 4(44.4) | 5 (55.6) | 0.426 |
| NO | 94(58.0) | 68 (42.0) | |
*Stage I-II vs. III-IV
Figure 4Kaplan-Meier curves with univariate analyses (log-rank) for patients with low CENP-H expression (bold line) versus high CENP-H expressing tumors (dotted line). The median survival of patients with high CENP-H expression was much shorter (19 months) than those with low CENP-H expression (33 months) (P < 0.001, Log-rank).
Univariate and multivariate analysis of different prognostic parameters in patients with esophageal carcinoma by Cox-regression analysis
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
| No. patients | p | Regression coefficient(SE) | p | Relative risk | 95% confidence interval | |
| pN metastasis | 0.592(0.197) | 0.003 | 1.807 | 1.227~2.662 | ||
| Yes | 77 | <0.001 | ||||
| No | 94 | |||||
| Stage | 0.039 | -0.403 (0.293) | 0.169 | 0.669 | 0.377~1.187 | |
| I-II | 99 | |||||
| III-IV | 72 | |||||
| Gender | -0.496(0.259) | 0.056 | 0.609 | 0.366~1.012 | ||
| Male | 129 | 0.005 | ||||
| Female | 42 | |||||
| CENP-H | 0.529(0.200) | 0.008 | 1.698 | 1.147~2.513 | ||
| Low expression | 98 | <0.001 | ||||
| High expression | 73 | |||||
Figure 5Kaplan-Meier analysis showing the overall survival of esophageal carcinoma patients categorized according to the T or N classification and status of CENP-H expression. The statistical significance of the difference between curves of CENP-H high-expressing and low-expressing patients was compared in T1–T2 (A) and T3–T4 (B) patient subgroups. The same analysis was compared in N0(C) and N1(D). P values were calculated by the log-rank test.