| Literature DB >> 24358147 |
Aiping Ding1, Wenwen Zhao2, Xiaoli Shi1, Ruyong Yao3, Fang Zhou1, Lu Yue1, Shihai Liu3, Wensheng Qiu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: NPM, TFF3 and TACC1 are molecular markers that play important roles in cell differentiation. Herein, we investigated their prognostic impact in patients with primary gastric cancer (GC) and determined whether they could be used as markers of more aggressive gastric carcinomas by detecting the extent of expression in human gastric carcinoma samples. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24358147 PMCID: PMC3864846 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082136
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Antibody used in this study.
| Antigen | Antibody | Clone | Catalogue no | Source | Dilution |
| NPM | Anti-Nucleophosmin antibody | Mouse monoclonal | ab10530 | abcam | 1∶100 |
| TFF3 | Anti-Trefoil Factor 3 antibody | Mouse monoclonal | ab57752 | abcam | 1∶100 |
| TACC1 | TACC1 (E41) pAb | Rabbit | BS2644 | abcam | 1∶100 |
Figure 1Immunohistochemical expression levels of NPM, TFF3 and TACC1 in gastric cancer.
Strong staining of NPM was observed in the nucleolus, nucleus and cytoplasm of tumor epithelial cells (a, b). High expression of TFF3 (c and d) was predominantly observed in the cytoplasm of tumor epithelial cells. TACC1 was expressed in the cytoplasm of tumor epithelial cells (e and f).
Correlation between clinicopathological factors and NPM, TFF3 and TACC1 expressions.
| Clinicopathological factors | NPM | P-value | TFF3 | P-value | TACC1 | P-value | |||
| Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | Positive | Negative | ||||
| N = 67 | N = 75 | N = 63 | N = 79 | N = 70 | N = 72 | ||||
| Age | |||||||||
| ≤60 | 34 | 35 | P>0.05 | 27 | 42 | P>0.05 | 31 | 38 | P>0.05 |
| >60 | 33 | 40 | 36 | 37 | 39 | 34 | |||
| Gender | |||||||||
| Male | 48 | 45 | P>0.05 | 38 | 55 | P>0.05 | 36 | 57 | P<0.05 |
| Female | 19 | 30 | 25 | 24 | 34 | 15 | |||
| Tumor diameter | |||||||||
| ≤50 mm (small) | 47 | 45 | P>0.05 | 39 | 53 | P>0.05 | 45 | 47 | P>0.05 |
| >51 mm (large) | 20 | 30 | 24 | 26 | 25 | 25 | |||
| Tumor depth | |||||||||
| Early cancer (T | 12 | 8 | P>0.05 | 10 | 10 | P>0.05 | 13 | 7 | P>0.05 |
| Advanced cancer (T2–T4) | 55 | 67 | 53 | 69 | 57 | 65 | |||
| Histologic type | |||||||||
| Well moderately | 8 | 19 | P<0.05 | 6 | 21 | P<0.05 | 7 | 20 | P<0.05 |
| Poor, others | 59 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 63 | 52 | |||
| Peritoneal metastasis | |||||||||
| Negative | 61 | 73 | P>0.05 | 58 | 76 | P>0.05 | 66 | 68 | P>0.05 |
| Positive | 6 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | |||
| Venous invasion | |||||||||
| Negative | 65 | 69 | P>0.05 | 60 | 74 | P>0.05 | 63 | 71 | P<0.05 |
| Positive | 2 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 1 | |||
| Lymph node metastasis | |||||||||
| Negative | 26 | 38 | P>0.05 | 22 | 42 | P<0.05 | 29 | 35 | P>0.05 |
| Positive | 41 | 37 | 41 | 37 | 41 | 37 | |||
| Hepatic metastasis | |||||||||
| Negative | 60 | 74 | P<0.05 | 59 | 75 | P>0.05 | 64 | 70 | P>0.05 |
| Positive | 7 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 2 | |||
| Recurrence | |||||||||
| Negative | 56 | 71 | P<0.05 | 55 | 72 | P>0.05 | 61 | 66 | P>0.05 |
| Positive | 11 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 9 | 6 | |||
P<0.05 Statistically significant;
T: tumor size.
Univariate analysis with respect to overall survival in 142(univariate analysis; log-rank test).
| Characteristics | Patients (n) | Patients (%) | p-value | ||
| Age (years) | P<0.05 | ||||
| ≤60 | 69 | 49 | |||
| >60 | 73 | 51 | |||
| Gender | P>0.05 | ||||
| Male | 93 | 65 | |||
| Female | 49 | 35 | |||
| Histology | P>0.05 | ||||
| Well moderately | 27 | 19 | |||
| Poor, others | 115 | 81 | |||
| Tumor diameter | P>0.05 | ||||
| ≤50 mm (small) | 92 | 65 | |||
| >51 mm (large) | 50 | 35 | |||
| Stage | P>0.05 | ||||
| Early cancer (T**1) | 20 | 14 | |||
| Advanced cancer (T2–T4) | 122 | 86 | |||
| Peritoneal metastasis | P<0.05 | ||||
| Negative | 134 | 94 | |||
| Positive | 8 | 6 | |||
| Venous invasion | P>0.05 | ||||
| Negative | 134 | 94 | |||
| Positive | 8 | 6 | |||
| Lymph node metastasis | P<0.05 | ||||
| Negative | 64 | 45 | |||
| Positive | 78 | 55 | |||
| Hepatic metastasis | P<0.05 | ||||
| Negative | 134 | 94 | |||
| Positive | 8 | 6 | |||
| Recurrence | P<0.05 | ||||
| Negative | 127 | 89 | |||
| Positive | 15 | 11 | |||
| NPM | P>0.05 | ||||
| Negative | 75 | 53 | |||
| Positive | 67 | 47 | |||
| TFF3 | P<0.001 | ||||
| Negative | 79 | 56 | |||
| Positive | 63 | 44 | |||
| TACC1 | P<0.001 | ||||
| Negative | 72 | 51 | |||
| Positive | 70 | 49 | |||
| NPM/TFF3 | P<0.05 | ||||
| Co-negative | 47 | 33 | |||
| Single-positive | 60 | 42 | |||
| Co-positive | 35 | 25 | |||
| TFF3/TACC1 | P<0.001 | ||||
| Co-negative | 54 | 38 | |||
| Single-positive | 43 | 30 | |||
| Co-positive | 45 | 32 | |||
| NPM/TACC1 | P<0.05 | ||||
| Co-negative | 47 | 33 | |||
| Single-positive | 54 | 38 | |||
| Co-positive | 41 | 29 | |||
| NPM/TFF3/TACC1 | P<0.001 | ||||
| Co-negative | 39 | 27 | |||
| Single-positive | 79 | 56 | |||
| Co-positive | 24 | 17 | |||
Figure 2Kaplan-Meier overall survival curves of 142 GC patients according to age (a), lymph node metastasis (b), TFF3 expression (c), and TACC1 expression (d) (P<0.05).
Abbreviations: age = 0 means age≤60 years; age = 1 means age>60 years. node = 0 means no lymph node metastasis; node = 1 means lymph node metastasis.
Multivariate analysis of overall survival in 142(multivariate analysis; log-rank test).
| Factors | Hazardratio | 95% confidenceinterval (CI) | p-value |
| Lymph node metastasis | 4.311 | 2.148–8.651 | <0.001 |
| TFF3 | 4.409 | 2.387–8.143 | <0.001 |
| TACC1 | 3.278 | 1.803–5.959 | <0.001 |
= 0 means TFF3-negative expression; TFF3 = 1 means TFF3-positive expression. TACC1 = 0 means TACC1-negative expression; TACC1 = 1 means TACC1-positive expression. P-values were calculated by the log-rank test. TFF3