| Literature DB >> 21211023 |
Jin-Xue Zhou1, Yin Li, Sun-Xiao Chen, An-Mei Deng.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer-testis antigens (CTAs) are suitable targets for cancer-specific immunotherapy. The aim of the study is to investigate the expression of CTAs in intrahepatic cholagiocarcinoma (IHCC) and evaluate their potential therapeutic values.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21211023 PMCID: PMC3023685 DOI: 10.1186/1756-9966-30-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res ISSN: 0392-9078
Figure 1Immunohistochemical analysis of MAGE-A1, MAGEA3/4, NY-ESO-1 and HLA Class I in intrahepatic cholagiocarcinoma. Sections were stained with antibody against (A) MAGE-A1 (MA454); (B) MAGE-A3/A4 (57B); (C) NY-ESO-1 (E978); (D) HLA Class I (EMR8-5).
Expression of cancer-testis antigens in intrahepatic cholanglocarcinoma
| MAGE-A1 N (%) | MAGE-A3/4 N (%) | NY-ESO-1 N (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 63 (70.8) | 65 (73.0) | 70 (78.7) | |
| 26 (29.2) | 24 (27.1) | 19 (21.3) | |
| + | 2 (2.2) | 1 (1.1) | 1 (1.1) |
| ++ | 3 (3.4) | 4 (4.4) | 1 (1.1) |
| +++ | 12 (13.5) | 14 (15.7) | 7 (7.9) |
| ++++ | 9 (10.1) | 5 (5.6) | 10 (11.2) |
Figure 2Venn diagram depicting the overlap in the expression of cancer-testis antigens in intrahepatic cholagiocarcinoma.
Correlation between CTA expression pattern and HLA class I expression
| CTA expression pattern | HLA class I expression | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positive (n = 51) | Down-regulated (n = 38) | ||
| Positive | 18 | 8 | 0.144 |
| Negative | 33 | 30 | |
| Positive | 11 | 13 | 0.184 |
| Negative | 40 | 25 | |
| Positive | 11 | 8 | 0.953 |
| Negative | 40 | 30 | |
| With | 30 | 22 | 0.930 |
| Without | 21 | 16 | |
| With | 9 | 5 | 0.565 |
| Without | 42 | 33 | |
| With | 1 | 2 | 0.795 |
| Without | 50 | 36 | |
Univariate analyses of prognostic factors associated with overall survival (OS)
| Variable | Category | No. of patients | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | female vs. male | 31 vs. 58 | 0.587 |
| Age | < 60 vs. ≥60, years | 19 vs. 70 | 0.532 |
| TNM stage | 1/2 vs. 3/4 | 34 vs. 55 | 0.007 |
| Tumor size | ≥5 cm vs. < 5 cm | 55 vs. 34 | 0.690 |
| Differentiation | well or mod vs. poor | 26 vs. 63 | 0.008 |
| Resection margin | R0 vs. R1/2 | 56 vs. 33 | 0.008 |
| Tumor number | single vs. multiple | 58 vs. 31 | 0.385 |
| Vascular invasion | with vs. without | 42 vs. 47 | 0.227 |
| Perineural invasion | with vs. without | 33 vs. 56 | 0.736 |
| Lymph node metastasis | with vs. without | 38 vs. 51 | 0.001 |
| Tumor recurrence | with vs. without | 47 vs. 42 | 0.022 |
| MAGE-A1 | Positive vs. negative | 26 vs. 63 | 0.116 |
| MAGE-A3/4 | Positive vs. negative | 24 vs. 65 | 0.009 |
| NY-ESO-1 | Positive vs. negative | 19 vs. 70 | 0.068 |
| 1 CTA positive | with vs. without | 52 vs. 37 | 0.001 |
| 2 CTA positive | with vs. without | 14 vs. 75 | 0.078 |
| 3 CTA positive | with vs. without | 3 vs. 86 | 0.372 |
Figure 3Correlation between individual or combined CTA expression and survival. Kaplan-Meier survival curves performed according to CTAs expression.(A) MAGE-A1; (B) MAGE-A3/4; (C) NY-ESO-1; (D) at least one CTA positive; (E) two CTAs expression; (F) with three CTAs expression.
Multivariate analyses of factors associated with overall survival (OS)
| Variable | HR | 95% Confidence Interval | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| 1 CTA positive | 0.524 | 0.298 | 0.920 | 0.024 |
| MAGE-A3/4 | 0.897 | 0.505 | 1.594 | 0.711 |
| Differentiation | 0.447 | 0.263 | 0.758 | 0.003 |
| TNM stage | 1.122 | 0.597 | 2.110 | 0.721 |
| Lymph node metastasis | 0.389 | 0.207 | 0.732 | 0.003 |
| Tumor recurrence | 0.706 | 0.386 | 1.291 | 0.258 |
| Resection margin | 1.138 | 0.574 | 2.258 | 0.711 |