| Literature DB >> 24077681 |
Roxana S Redis1, Anieta M Sieuwerts, Maxime P Look, Oana Tudoran, Cristina Ivan, Riccardo Spizzo, Xinna Zhang, Vanja de Weerd, Masayoshi Shimizu, Hui Ling, Rares Buiga, Victor Pop, Alexandru Irimie, Riccardo Fodde, Isabella Bedrosian, John W M Martens, John A Foekens, Ioana Berindan-Neagoe, George A Calin.
Abstract
The clinical outcome of BC patients receiving the same treatment is known to vary considerably and thus, there is a compelling need to identify novel biomarkers that can select the patients that would benefit most from a given therapy and can predict the clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of CCAT2, a novel long ncRNA recently characterized by our group and overlapping SNP rs6983267, in BC patients. We first evaluated by RT-qPCR and ISH the expression of CCAT2 in normal breast tissue and BC tissue and further analyzed CCAT2 expression in an independent set of 997 primary BC with regard to clinical, histological, pathological and other biological factors. Also, we explored the possibility of CCAT2 adding to the prognostic value of multivariate models that already included the traditional prognostic factors. Finally, we identified in in vitro models the impact of CCAT2 expression and SNP rs6983267 genotype on cell migration and chemoresistance. Our results revealed that although overexpressed in BCs in two out of three sets of patients, and having the highest expression in lymph node negative (LNN) disease, CCAT2 expression levels are informative solely for a subgroup of BC patients, namely for patients with LNP disease that have received adjuvant CMF chemotherapy. For this subgroup high levels of CCAT2 suggest the patients will not benefit from CMF containing adjuvant chemotherapy (shorter MFS and OS). Additionally, we found that CCAT2 upregulates cell migration and downregulates chemosensitivity to 5'FU in a rs6983267-independent manner.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24077681 PMCID: PMC3858561 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.1292
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1a) CCAT2 expression in BC patients (OICN cohort) quantified by qRT-PCR. b). In situ hybridization of CCAT2 and U6 (as reference) in BC patient samples and CCAT2 expression in BC patients determined by quantifying ISH images from TMA slide. Each sample was represented in 5 replicates for non-cancer tissue and 3 replicates for cancer tissue on the slide. c). Expression of CCAT2 mRNA in clinical breast cancers (EMC cohort) after dividing the cancers at the median level in tumors containing a relatively high percentage (>68%) of invasive tumor cells and tumors containing a relatively low percentage (30-68%) of invasive tumor cells (RT-qPCR mRNA levels expressed as fold difference relative to the 3-gene reference gene set). d). Expression levels of CCAT2 mRNA in human breast cancer cell lines and 2 pools of breast cancers (TP-2 and TPA-2, hatched bars) (RT-qPCR mRNA levels expressed as fold difference relative to the 3-gene reference gene set). e) Distribution of CCAT2 mRNA in clinical breast cancers (RT-qPCR levels expressed relative to the 3-gene reference gene set).
Figure 2Associations of CCAT2 with a) amplification of 8q24 (n=80 amplified versus n=146 unamplified) and the SNPs b) rs6983267 (n=241 GG, n=393 GT, n=238 TT) and c) rs13281615 (n=297 AA, n=392 AG, n=157 GG).
Associations of CCAT2 expression levels with clinical, biological and histo-morphological factors.
| All patients | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | No of patients | |||
| All patients in this cohort | 997 | median | inter-quartile | |
| ≤40 | 140 | 0.69 | 5.12 | |
| 41-55 | 394 | 0.57 | 3.07 | |
| 56-70 | 313 | 0.56 | 2.36 | |
| >70 | 150 | 0.77 | 2.82 | |
| premenopausal | 460 | 0.61 | 3.69 | |
| postmenopausal | 537 | 0.59 | 2.40 | |
| negative, < 0.2 | 230 | 1.19 | 4.78 | |
| positive, ≥0.2 | 767 | 0.54 | 2.16 | |
| negative, < 0.1 | 396 | 0.83 | 4.09 | |
| positive, ≥ 0.1 | 601 | 0.49 | 2.24 | |
| Poor | 531 | 0.65 | 3.44 | |
| Unknown | 282 | 0.56 | 2.41 | |
| Moderate/good | 184 | 0.57 | 2.44 | |
| pT1, ≤2 cm | 377 | 0.57 | 2.20 | |
| pT2, >2-5 cm + unknown | 534 | 0.64 | 3.46 | |
| pT3, >5 cm + pT4 | 86 | 0.52 | 2.59 | |
| no, (LNN) | 621 | 0.84 | 4.60 | |
| yes, (LNP), 1 to 3 | 189 | 0.40 | 1.24 | |
| yes, (LNP), >3 | 187 | 0.45 | 1.11 | |
| IDC | 533 | 0.56 | 2.39 | |
| DCIS + IDC | 151 | 0.50 | 1.97 | |
| ILC | 85 | 0.61 | 3.58 | |
| mucinous | 29 | 0.47 | 1.27 | |
ER+ and/or PR+ with RT-PCR cut point used for ER, 0.2 and PR, 0.1 (relative to reference gene set).
Only data for the 4 most common histological subtypes are presented in this table, IDC; infiltrating ductal carcinoma, DCIS; ductal carcinoma in situ, ILC; infiltrating lobular carcinoma.
Due to missing data numbers do not add up to 997.
P for Spearman rank correlation test.
P for Mann-Whitney U test.
P for Kruskal-Wallis test, including a Wilcoxon-type test for trend when appropriate.
CCAT2 expression levels in Cox univariate analysis for distant metastasis-free and overall survival.
| Histo-morphological and clinical subgroups | No patients | HR | (95% CI) | HR | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 250 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| 250 | 1.13 | (0.88-1.47) | 1.12 | (0.88-1.47) | |||
| 248 | 1.16 | (0.89-1.50) | 1.13 | (0.86-1.48) | |||
| 249 | 1.09 | (0.84-1.41) | 1.17 | (0.90-1.53) | |||
| 130 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| 138 | 1.31 | (0.89-1.93) | 1.17 | (0.79-1.74) | |||
| 150 | 1.27 | (0.86-1.86) | 1.25 | (0.85-1.84) | |||
| 203 | 1.26 | (0.88-1.81) | 1.29 | (0.90-1.86) | |||
| 59 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| 45 | 0.99 | (0.60-1.66) | 1.03 | (0.61-1.73) | |||
| 48 | 1.17 | (0.72-1.90) | 1.08 | (0.64-1.80) | |||
| 15 | 2.12 | (0.06-4.22) | 2.62 | (0.34-5.13) | |||
| 19 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| 24 | 1.36 | (0.65-2.83) | 1.82 | (0.82-4.03) | |||
| 21 | 0.55 | (0.23-1.31) | 0.50 | (0.18-1.38) | |||
| 9 | 0.68 | (0.22-2.11) | (0.10-2.07) | ||||
| 41 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| 43 | 0.94 | (0.49-1.80) | 1.08 | (0.53-2.18) | |||
| 29 | 1.85 | (0.97-3.53) | 2.34 | (1.16-4.70) | |||
| 21 | 2.44 | (1.23-4.86) | 2.94 | (1.43-6.03) | |||
| 42 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| 52 | 1.57 | (0.88-2.81) | 1.10 | (0.63-1.92) | |||
| 56 | 1.41 | (0.79-2.50) | 0.95 | (0.55-1.66) | |||
| 80 | 0.91 | (0.51-1.62) | 0.84 | (0.50-1.42) | |||
| 208 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| 198 | 1.04 | (0.77-1.39) | 1.11 | (0.82-1.51) | |||
| 192 | 1.08 | (0.81-1.45) | 1.15 | (0.85-1.57) | |||
| 169 | 1.16 | (0.86-1.57) | 1.24 | (0.91-1.70) | |||
| 22 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| 31 | 1.26 | (0.58-2.76) | 0.93 | (0.43-2.00) | |||
| 37 | 1.07 | (0.50-2.30) | 0.77 | (0.36-1.65) | |||
| 66 | 0.62 | (0.29-1.31) | 0.64 | (0.32-1.30) | |||
| 108 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| 107 | 1.28 | (0.82-2.01) | 1.20 | (0.76-1.91) | |||
| 113 | 1.27 | (0.81-1.99) | 1.38 | (0.88-2.16) | |||
| 137 | 1.59 | (1.05-2.41) | 1.55 | (1.02-2.38) | |||
| 20 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| 21 | 2.07 | (0.87-4.95) | 1.43 | (0.64-3.19) | |||
| 19 | 2.23 | (0.93-5.33) | 1.52 | (0.68-3.40) | |||
| 14 | 2.98 | (1.21-7.35) | 2.67 | (1.17-6.09) | |||
| 100 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| 91 | 0.88 | (0.60-1.30) | 1.05 | (0.70-1.58) | |||
| 79 | 1.03 | (0.70-1.52) | 1.05 | (0.68-1.62) | |||
| 32 | 1.24 | (0.74-2.09) | 1.44 | (0.84-2.49) | |||
ER status according RT-qPCR cut point at 0.2 (relative to reference geneset).
Cox univariate and multivariate analysis for MFS as a function of CCAT2 in primary breast tumors from 134 LNP breast tumor patients that received adjuvant CMF
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor | No. Patients | HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | ||
| ≤40 | 35 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| >40 | 99 | 0.74 | (0.44-1.25) | 0.73 | (0.43-1.26) | ||
| premenopausal | 119 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| postmenopausal | 15 | 1.15 | (0.57-2.32) | 1.40 | (0.63-3.08) | ||
| pT1, ≤2 cm | 36 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| pT2, >2- ≤5 cm | 80 | 1.92 | (1.03-3.56) | 1.73 | (0.92-3.23) | ||
| pT3, >5 cm, + pT4 | 18 | 2.82 | (1.28-6.20) | 3.42 | (1.49-7.87) | ||
| 1−3 | 92 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| >3 | 42 | 1.62 | (0.99-2.62) | 1.58 | (0.96-2.59) | ||
| poor | 70 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| unknown | 42 | 0.60 | (0.34-1.04) | 0.48 | (0.26-0.87) | ||
| moderate | 22 | 0.46 | (0.22-0.96) | 0.46 | (0.21-0.98) | ||
| negative, <0.2 | 25 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| positive, ≥0.2 | 109 | 0.77 | (0.42-1.40) | 0.63 | (0.28-1.42) | ||
| negative, <0.1 | 45 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| positive, ≥0.1 | 89 | 0.97 | (0.59-1.60) | 1.48 | (0.73-2.99) | ||
| 0-25% | 41 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 25-50% | 43 | 0.94 | (0.49-1.80) | 0.98 | (0.50-1.93) | ||
| 50-75% | 29 | 1.85 | (0.97-3.53) | 1.94 | (0.98-3.85) | ||
| 75-100% | 21 | 2.44 | (1.23-4.86) | 2.25 | (1.07-4.74) | ||
Seven of these patients received both hormonal therapy and chemotherapy and one patient had a ovarectomy.
CCAT2 RNA levels were separately introduced to the base multivariate model that included the following factors: age, menopausal status, nodal status, pathological tumor size, grade, ER and PR status.
ER and PR status according RT-qPCR cut point at 0.2 for ER and 0.1 for PR (mRNA levels relative to reference gene set).
Figure 3a). (Upper panel) Migration of MDA-MB-231 cells stably transfected with the empty vector (E), and vectors containing the CCAT2 G, T alleles. Results represent the mean value of 3 experiments performed in triplicate ± SD. (Lower panel) CCAT2 expression levels in the MDA-MB-231 clones assessed by RT-qPCR (U6 and HPRT1 were used as reference genes). b). (Upper panel) Migration of MDA-MB-436 cells transiently transfected with pcDNA CCAT2 vectors. Results represent the mean value of 3 experiments performed in triplicate ± SD. (Lower panel) CCAT2 expression levels in the MDA-MB-436 cells assessed 24 hours after transient transfection with pcDNA CCAT2 vectors by qRT-PCR qPCR (U6 and HPRT1 were used as reference genes). c). Effect of 5'Fluorouracil (5'FU) on cell proliferation of MDA-MB-231 CCAT2 clones (E, G, T). Cells were treated with 3 different concentrations of 5'FU and after 120 hours and the cell viability was determined by the MTT assay. Results represent the mean value of 2 experiments performed in quadruplicate ± SD. Statistical significance is marked with the star symbol, namely ‘*’ for P<0.05, ‘**’ for P<0.001 and ‘***’ for P<0.0001.