| Literature DB >> 22537306 |
Wen-Fei Li1, Na Liu, Rui-Xue Cui, Qing-Mei He, Mo Chen, Ning Jiang, Ying Sun, Jing Zeng, Li-Zhi Liu, Jun Ma.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metastasis-associated protein 1 (MTA1) has been associated with poor prognosis in several malignant carcinomas. The purpose of this study was to investigate the expression and prognostic value of MTA1 in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22537306 PMCID: PMC3478212 DOI: 10.1186/1479-5876-10-78
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Correlation between the nuclear expression levels of MTA1 and the clinicopathological characteristics of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients
| | | | 0.93 | |
| Male | 155 | 80 (51.6%) | 75 (48.4%) | |
| Female | 53 | 27 (50.9%) | 26 (49.1%) | |
| | | | 0.86 | |
| ≤ 50 | 129 | 67 (51.9%) | 62 (48.1%) | |
| > 50 | 79 | 40 (50.6%) | 39 (49.4%) | |
| | | | 0.07 | |
| T1-T2 | 104 | 60 (57.7%) | 44 (42.3%) | |
| T3-T4 | 104 | 47 (45.2%) | 57 (54.8%) | |
| | | | 0.02 | |
| N0-N1 | 130 | 75 (57.7%) | 55 (42.3%) | |
| N2-N3 | 78 | 32 (41.0%) | 46 (59.0%) | |
| | | | 0.04 | |
| I-II | 70 | 43 (61.4%) | 27 (38.6%) | |
| III-IV | 138 | 64 (46.4%) | 74 (53.6%) | |
| | | | 0.61 | |
| No | 185 | 94 (50.8%) | 91 (49.2%) | |
| Yes | 23 | 13 (56.5%) | 10 (43.5%) | |
| | | | <0.01 | |
| No | 159 | 90 (56.6%) | 69 (43.4%) | |
| Yes | 49 | 17 (34.7%) | 32 (65.3%) | |
| | | | 0.01 | |
| No | 160 | 90 (56.2%) | 70 (43.8%) | |
| Yes | 48 | 17 (35.4%) | 31 (64.6%) | |
Figure 1Immunohistochemical analysis of MTA1 protein expression in nasopharyngeal carcinoma tissues. MTA1 protein expression was mainly localized within the nucleus. (A) Negative staining (400×); (B) weak staining: light yellow (400×); (C) moderate staining: yellow brown (400×); (D) strong staining: brown (400×); (E) MTA1 protein expression was upregulated in the nasopharyngeal carcinoma tissue (solid arrow) compared to the adjacent noncancerous epithelial cells (hollow arrow).
Univariate analysis of the significance of different prognostic variables in nasopharyngeal carcinoma
| 0.02 | 1.90 | 1.09–3.35 | <0.01 | 2.15 | 1.22–3.81 | |
| 0.82 | 0.93 | 1.48–1.78 | 0.66 | 0.86 | 0.44–1.69 | |
| 0.14 | 1.78 | 0.83–3.79 | 0.26 | 1.52 | 0.73–3.13 | |
| 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.80–1.25 | 0.93 | 1.01 | 0.81–1.26 | |
| 0.13 | 1.55 | 0.88–2.74 | 0.06 | 1.77 | 0.99–3.18 | |
| 0.02 | 1.98 | 1.13–3.47 | 0.01 | 2.06 | 1.17–3.63 | |
| 0.01 | 2.52 | 1.22–5.19 | <0.01 | 2.78 | 1.30–5.95 | |
| <0.01 | 2.25 | 1.25–4.05 | <0.01 | 2.19 | 1.21–3.97 | |
Abbreviation: DMFS distant metastasis free-survival; OS overall survival; IMRT intensity-modulated radiotherapy; 2D-RT two-dimensional radiotherapy.
Figure 2Kaplan-Meier distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival curves for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients stratified by MTA1 expression level and clinical stage. (A) Stage I-IV patients (n = 208); (B) Stage II patients (n = 64); (C) Stage III patients (n = 63); (D) Stage IV patients (n = 75). HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval.
Multivariate analysis of the significance of different prognostic variables in nasopharyngeal carcinoma
| 0.02 | 1.91 | 1.09–3.34 | 0.01 | 2.11 | 1.19–3.74 | |
| 0.88 | 1.05 | 0.54–2.05 | 0.99 | 1.00 | 0.50–2.01 | |
| 0.39 | 1.42 | 0.64–3.11 | 0.62 | 1.21 | 0.57–2.58 | |
| 0.65 | 0.95 | 0.76–1.19 | 0.67 | 0.95 | 0.76–1.20 | |
| 0.03 | 2.21 | 1.06–4.59 | 0.02 | 2.44 | 1.13–5.25 | |
| 0.02 | 2.05 | 1.13–3.72 | 0.03 | 1.98 | 1.09–3.59 | |
Abbreviation: DMFS distant metastasis free-survival; OS overall survival; IMRT intensity-modulated radiotherapy; 2D-RT two-dimensional radiotherapy.
Figure 3(A) Recursive partitioning analysis of distant metastasis-free survival in all nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients; (B) recursive partitioning analysis of overall survival in all NPC patients; (C) Kaplan-Meier distant metastasis-free survival curves in the classified patients; (D) Kaplan-Meier overall survival curves in the classified patients. HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval.