| Literature DB >> 23573264 |
Huan-Xin Lin1, Hui-Juan Qiu, Fei Zeng, Hui-Lan Rao, Guo-Fen Yang, Hsiang-Fu Kung, Xiao-Feng Zhu, Yi-Xin Zeng, Mu-Yan Cai, Dan Xie.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that autophagy-related Beclin 1 plays a critical role in the regulation of tumor development and/or progression, but its prognostic significance and relationship with Bcl-xL expression in ovarian carcinoma are unclear. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23573264 PMCID: PMC3616009 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060516
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Association of Beclin 1 Expression with Patients' Clinicopathologic Features in Ovarian Carcinomas.
| Beclin 1 protein | ||||
| Variable | All Cases | Low Expression | High Expression |
|
| Age at surgery (years) | 0.502 | |||
| ≤50.8† | 83 | 44 (53.0%) | 39 (47.0%) | |
| >50.8 | 86 | 50 (58.1%) | 36 (41.9%) | |
| Histological type | 0.063 | |||
| Serous | 113 | 65 (57.5%) | 48 (42.5%) | |
| Mucinous | 21 | 8 (38.1%) | 13 (61.9%) | |
| Endometrioid | 7 | 2 (28.6%) | 5 (71.4%) | |
| Clear cell | 7 | 3 (42.9%) | 4 (57.1%) | |
| Undifferentiated | 21 | 16 (76.2%) | 5 (23.8%) | |
| Histological grade (Silveberg) | 0.002 | |||
| G1 | 29 | 8 (27.6%) | 21 (72.4%) | |
| G2 | 100 | 59 (59.0%) | 41 (41.0%) | |
| G3 | 40 | 27 (67.5%) | 13 (32.5%) | |
| pT status | 0.037 | |||
| pT1 | 47 | 19 (40.4%) | 28 (59.6%) | |
| pT2 | 32 | 18 (56.3%) | 14 (43.8%) | |
| pT3 | 90 | 57 (63.3%) | 33 (36.7%) | |
| pN status | 0.005 | |||
| pN0 | 83 | 37 (44.6%) | 46 (55.4%) | |
| pN1 | 86 | 57 (66.3%) | 29 (33.7%) | |
| pM status | 0.001 | |||
| pMX | 146 | 74 (50.7%) | 72 (49.3%) | |
| pM1 | 23 | 20 (87.0%) | 3 (13.0%) | |
| FIGO stage | 0.000 | |||
| I | 30 | 8 (26.7%) | 22 (73.3%) | |
| II | 20 | 8 (40.0%) | 12 (60.0%) | |
| III | 96 | 58 (60.4%) | 38 (39.6%) | |
| IV | 23 | 30 (87.0%) | 3 (13.0%) | |
| Bcl-xL expression | 0.001 | |||
| Low | 58 | 22 (37.9%) | 36 (62.1%) | |
| High | 111 | 72 (64.9%) | 39 (35.1%) | |
Chi-square test; †Mean age; FIGO indicates International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Figure 1Beclin 1 and Bcl-xL expressions in ovarian tissues and X-tile plots of Beclin 1 expression in ovarian carcinomas.
(A) Western blotting analysis of Beclin 1 and Bcl-xL expressions in ovarian carcinoma tissues (T) and adjacent normal ovarian tissues (N). (B) High expression of Beclin 1 was observed in epithelia cells of normal ovary by immunohistochemistry. (C) Highly-expressed Beclin 1 was examined in a cystadenoma case 12. (D) An ovarian borderline tumor (Case 18) showed immunoreactivity of Beclin 1 mainly in cytoplasm. (E) Low expression of Beclin 1 was detected in an ovarian carcinoma case (Case 79). Representative sites in tissue microarray with low (×100) and high (inset, ×400) magnification were shown. (F) X-tile analysis was employed to determine the cutpoint for Beclin 1 expression, by equally dividing the total patients into training and validation subsets. X-tile plots of training sets were displayed in the left panels, with matched validation sets in the smaller inset. The plot showed the χ2 log-rank values generated when dividing the cohort into two populations. The cutpoint (H score = 160) highlighted by the black/white circle in the horizontal axis (left panel) was demonstrated on a histogram of the entire cohort (middle panel), and a Kaplan-Meier plot (right panel).
Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Different Prognostic Features in 169 Patients with Ovarian Carcinoma.
| Variable | Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis† | ||||
| All Cases | Mean Survival (Months) | Median Survival (Months) |
| HR (95% CI) |
| |
| Age at surgery (years) | 0.797 | |||||
| ≤50.8‡ | 83 | 80.4 | 66.0 | |||
| >50.8 | 86 | 84.6 | NR | |||
| Histological type | 0.421 | |||||
| Serous | 113 | 70.5 | 72.0 | |||
| Mucinous | 21 | 82.6 | 81.0 | |||
| Endometrioid | 7 | 132.4 | NR | |||
| Clear cell | 7 | 102.8 | NR | |||
| Undifferentiated | 21 | 35.2 | NR | |||
| Histological grade (Silveberg) | 0.020 | 0.987 (0.629–1.548) | 0.955 | |||
| G1 | 29 | 105.6 | 136.0 | |||
| G2 | 100 | 77.6 | 66.0 | |||
| G3 | 40 | 50.0 | 29.0 | |||
| pT status | 0.005 | 1.246 (0.804–1.933) | 0.325 | |||
| pT1 | 47 | 110.2 | NR | |||
| pT2 | 32 | 84.9 | NR | |||
| pT3 | 90 | 66.6 | 37.0 | |||
| pN status | 0.000 | 2.121 (1.219–3.689) | 0.008 | |||
| pN0 | 83 | 96.6 | 136.0 | |||
| pN1 | 86 | 55.7 | 39.0 | |||
| pM status | 0.000 | 1.228 (0.335–4.503) | 0.757 | |||
| pMX | 146 | 91.1 | 136.0 | |||
| pM1 | 23 | 23.4 | 13.0 | |||
| FIGO stage | 0.000 | 2.965 (1.213–7.244) | 0.017 | |||
| I | 30 | 134.2 | NR | |||
| II | 20 | 113.7 | NR | |||
| III | 96 | 71.2 | 45.0 | |||
| IV | 23 | 23.4 | 13.0 | |||
| Beclin 1expression | 0.000 | 0.489 (0.273–0.909) | 0.013 | |||
| Low | 94 | 57.8 | 34.0 | |||
| High | 75 | 110.2 | 136.0 | |||
| Bcl-xl expression | 0.028 | 1.894 (0.859–3.556) | 0.147 | |||
| Low | 58 | 84.2 | NR | |||
| High | 111 | 74.5 | 34.0 | |||
Log-rank test; †Cox regression model; ‡Mean age; HR indicates hazards ratio; CI indicates confidence interval; NR indicates not reached; FIGO indicates International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Figure 2Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of Beclin 1 expression in subsets of patients with ovarian carcinoma (log-rank test).
(A) Survival analysis of Beclin1 expression in subsets of different grade patients: left panel, grade 1; middle panel, grade 2; right panel, grade 3. (B) Survival analysis of Beclin1 expression in subsets of different stage patients: left panel, stage II; middle panel, stage III; right panel, stage IV. (C) Survival analysis of Beclin1 expression in subsets of different pathologic T stage patients: left panel, pT1; middle panel, pT2; right panel, pT3. (D) Survival analysis of Beclin1 expression in subsets of different pathologic N stage patients: left panel, pN0; right panel, pN1. (E) Survival analysis of Beclin1 expression in subsets of different pathologic M stage patients: left panel, pMX; right panel, pM1.
Figure 3The expression patterns of Beclin 1and Bcl-xL in ovarian carcinoma and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.
Consecutive sections were used for immunohistochemical study for Beclin 1 and Bcl-xL. (A) High Beclin 1/high Bcl-xL case (Case 9). (B) High Beclin 1/low Bcl-xL case (Case 17). (C) Low Beclin 1/high Bcl-xL (Case 42). (D) Low Beclin 1/low Bcl-xL case (Case 63, Magnification, ×100). (E) Kaplan-Meier analysis of overall survival (OS) for Beclin 1 expression in Bcl-xL–high population. (F) Kaplan-Meier analysis of OS for Beclin 1 expression in Bcl-xL–negative population. (G) Combined analysis of Beclin 1 and Bcl-xL expression in the prognostic value of patients with ovarian cancer (Log-rank test).
Figure 4Receive operating characteristic curve analysis for several clinicopathological features and Beclin 1 expression was used to evaluate the survival status.
(A) Age [area under curve (AUC) = 0.487, P = 0.769], histological grade (AUC = 0.588, P = 0.054), FIGO stage (AUC = 0.750, P<0.0001), pT status (AUC = 0.638, P = 0.003), pN status (AUC = 0.599, P = 0.031), pM status (AUC = 0.614, P = 0.012), histological type (AUC = 0.446, P = 0.242),Beclin 1 expression (AUC = 0.673, P<0.0001) and Bcl-xL (AUC = 0.588, P = 0.056) implied statistical associations with the survival in whole study population. (B) Age (AUC = 0.504, P = 0.943), histological grade (AUC = 0.609, P = 0.044), FIGO stage (AUC = 0.767, P<0.0001), pT status (AUC = 0.617, P = 0.030), pN status (AUC = 0.625, P = 0.020), pM status (AUC = 0.631, P = 0.015), histological type (AUC = 0.472, P = 0.598),and Beclin 1 expression (AUC = 0.675, P<0.0001) were applied to test the survival status in highly-expressed Bcl-xL population. (C) Age (AUC = 0.449, P = 0.583), histological grade (AUC = 0.511, P = 0.907), FIGO stage (AUC = 0.714, P = 0.022), pT status (AUC = 0.744, P = 0.009), pN status (AUC = 0.551, P = 0.583), pM status (AUC = 0.551, P = 0.583), histological type (AUC = 0.427, P = 0.434),and Beclin 1 expression (AUC = 0.603, P = 0.272) were employed to evaluate the survival in low-expressed Bcl-xL population.