AIMS: To explore the relationship between various molecular makers and liver metastasis of colorectal cancer (CRC). METHOD: Using immunohistochemistry, protein expression of CEA, nm23, c-met, MMP2, COX- 2, VEGF, EGFR, and CD44 was assessed in 80 CRC cases. The Chi-square test and logistic regression were performed to analyze the relationship between these indicators and CRC liver metastasis. RESULTS: There were significant differences in expression of CEA, MMP2, CD44, VEGF and EGFR between the liver metastasis and non metastasis groups (P < 0.05); no significant differences were noted for nm23, c-met, and COX-2 expression. Logistic regression analysis showed that only CEA, VEGF, and EGFR entered into the regression equation, and had significant correlations with CRC liver metastasis (α inclusion= 0.10, α elimination = 0.15, R2 = 0.718). CONCLUSIONS: Combination detection of CEA, VEGF, and EGFR may be an effective means to predict CRC liver metastasis. Nm23, c-met, MMP2, COX-2, and CD44, in contrast, are not suitable as prognostic markers.
AIMS: To explore the relationship between various molecular makers and liver metastasis of colorectal cancer (CRC). METHOD: Using immunohistochemistry, protein expression of CEA, nm23, c-met, MMP2, COX- 2, VEGF, EGFR, and CD44 was assessed in 80 CRC cases. The Chi-square test and logistic regression were performed to analyze the relationship between these indicators and CRC liver metastasis. RESULTS: There were significant differences in expression of CEA, MMP2, CD44, VEGF and EGFR between the liver metastasis and non metastasis groups (P < 0.05); no significant differences were noted for nm23, c-met, and COX-2 expression. Logistic regression analysis showed that only CEA, VEGF, and EGFR entered into the regression equation, and had significant correlations with CRC liver metastasis (α inclusion= 0.10, α elimination = 0.15, R2 = 0.718). CONCLUSIONS: Combination detection of CEA, VEGF, and EGFR may be an effective means to predict CRC liver metastasis. Nm23, c-met, MMP2, COX-2, and CD44, in contrast, are not suitable as prognostic markers.
Authors: Sofía Del Carmen; Luís Antonio Corchete; Ruth Gervas; Alba Rodriguez; María Garcia; José Antonio Álcazar; Jacinto García; Oscar Bengoechea; Luis Muñoz-Bellvis; José María Sayagués; Mar Abad Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 4.379