| Literature DB >> 22294183 |
M de Martino1, K Hoetzenecker, H J Ankersmit, G A Roth, A Haitel, M Waldert, T Klatte.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date, no reliable serum marker for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) is available. The aim of this study was to evaluate the putative significance of circulating 20S proteasome levels.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22294183 PMCID: PMC3305962 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Figure 1Accuracy of 20S proteasome serum levels for diagnosis of CCRCC. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 87.1%. A cut point of 1.94 μg ml−1 showed the highest diagnostic accuracy.
Descriptive statistics of CCRCC patients and associations with 20S proteasome serum levels
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.1832 | ||||
| Female | 38 | 34 | 5.40 | 4.54 | — |
| Male | 75 | 66 | 4.30 | 4.27 | — |
|
| 0.0008 | ||||
| No | 85 | 75 | 4.03 | 3.69 | — |
| Yes | 28 | 25 | 7.40 | 7.51 | — |
|
| 0.0729 | ||||
| pT1–2 | 54 | 48 | 4.00 | 4.19 | — |
| pT3 | 59 | 52 | 5.17 | 4.27 | — |
|
| 0.2139 | ||||
| pNx/N0 | 109 | 96 | 4.65 | 4.19 | — |
| pN1 | 4 | 4 | 7.04 | 2.84 | — |
|
| 0.0011 | ||||
| M0 | 90 | 80 | 4.21 | 3.91 | — |
| M1 | 23 | 20 | 7.43 | 7.05 | — |
|
| 0.0247 | ||||
| Grade 1–2 | 82 | 73 | 4.29 | 4.01 | — |
| Grade 3–4 | 31 | 27 | 6.20 | 6.11 | — |
|
| 0.0462 | ||||
| No | 61 | 54 | 3.98 | 4.05 | — |
| Yes | 52 | 46 | 5.27 | 4.20 | — |
|
| 0.0050 | ||||
| 0–2 | 51 | 45 | 3.88 | 4.03 | — |
| 3–7 | 40 | 35 | 4.65 | 3.47 | — |
| 8 or greater | 22 | 19 | 7.39 | 7.04 | — |
Abbreviations: CCRCC=clear cell renal cell carcinoma; IQR=interquartile range: SSIGN=T, N, M stage, size, grade, and necrosis.
Figure 2Association of 20S proteasome serum levels with DSS. Patients with high 20S proteasome serum levels had a 9.41-fold increased risk of death from CCRCC, compared with patients with low 20S proteasome serum levels. The optimal cut point of 7.24 μg ml−1 was identified through recursive partitioning.
Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| SSIGN score | 1.69 | 1.39–2.06 | <0.0001 | 92.5 |
| 20S proteasome continuous | 1.17 | 1.06–1.28 | 0.0015 | |
|
| ||||
| SSIGN score | 1.60 | 1.33–1.92 | <0.0001 | 93.2 |
| 20S proteasome categorical | 4.03 | 1.55–10.44 | 0.0041 | |
Abbreviations: CI=confidence intervals; C-index=concordance index; HR=hazards ratio; SSIGN=T, N, M stage, size, grade, and necrosis.
The models included SSIGN score and 20S proteasome serum level as continuous (model 1) or categorical variable (model 2). In both models, 20S proteasome serum levels were retained as independent prognostic factor. The C-index increased significantly from 91.4 to 92.5% and 93.2%, respectively, after the 20S proteasome serum level was introduced in the model.
20S proteasome serum levels decreased with increasing response category
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Progressive disease | 6 | 27 | 8.18 | 7.40 |
| Stable disease | 11 | 50 | 6.20 | 3.80 |
| Partial response | 5 | 23 | 3.65 | 0.84 |
Abbreviation: IQR=interquartile range.