| Literature DB >> 24655477 |
Stefanie Aust, Katharina Auer, Anna Bachmayr-Heyda, Carsten Denkert, Jalid Sehouli, Ioana Braicu, Sven Mahner, Sandrina Lambrechts, Ignace Vergote, Christoph Grimm, Reinhard Horvat, Dan Cacsire Castillo-Tong, Robert Zeillinger, Dietmar Pils1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Focal adhesion kinase (FAK) autophosphorylation seems to be a potential therapeutic target but little is known about the role and prognostic value of FAK and pFAK in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Recently, we validated a gene signature classifying EOC patients into two subclasses and revealing genes of the focal adhesion pathway as significantly deregulated.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24655477 PMCID: PMC3998046 DOI: 10.1186/1476-4598-13-67
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Cancer ISSN: 1476-4598 Impact factor: 27.401
Figure 1Representative immunohistochemical examples of FAK and pFAK-Y397 staining. FAK and pFAK staining intensities: 0, not stained at all; 1, low staining; 2, moderate staining; 3, strong staining. Pictures were taken using TissueFAXS, objective: ×40 (TissueGnostics, Austria).
Characteristics of patients with serous epithelial ovarian cancer broken down by pFAK abundance
| | | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 56.6 [13.2] | 59.5 [11.2] | 0.135 | | |
| | | 0.050 | ||
| II (n = 7) | 6 (5.3) | 1 (1.5) | | |
| III (n = 142) | 95 (84.1) | 47 (71.2) | | |
| IV (n = 30) | 12 (6.7) | 18 (27.3) | | |
| | | |||
| Grade 1&2 (n = 49) | 40 (35.7) | 9 (13.6) | | |
| Grade 3 (n = 129) | 72 (64.3) | 57 (86.4) | | |
| | | 0.229 | | |
| no (n = 126) | 76 (67.3) | 50 (75.8) | | |
| > 0 cm (n = 53) | 37 (32.7) | 16 (24.2) | | |
| | | 0.126 | | |
| no (n = 50) | 36 (31.9) | 14 (21.2) | | |
| yes (n = 129) | 77 (68.1) | 52 (78.8) | | |
| | | 0.546 | | |
| </= 500 ml (n = 106) | 65 (57.5) | 41 (62.1) | | |
| > 500 ml (n = 73) | 48 (42.5) | 25 (37.9) | | |
| | | |||
| N0 and M0 (n = 20) | 18 (15.9) | 2 (3.0) | | |
| N1 and/or M1 (n = 111) | 64 (56.6) | 47 (71.2) | | |
| NX or MX* (n = 48) | 31 (27.4) | 17 (25.8) |
P-values and adjusted p-values below 0.05 are shown in bold. *not included in statistics.
Characteristics of patients with serous epithelial ovarian cancer broken down by FAK abundance
| | | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 56.1 [18.7] | 57.8 [11.9] | 0.645 | | |
| | | 0.150 | | |
| II (n = 7) | 1 (7.1) | 6 (3.6) | | |
| III (n = 142) | 13 (92.9) | 129 (78.2) | | |
| IV (n = 30) | 0 (0) | 30 (18.2) | | |
| | | 0.535 | | |
| Grade 1&2 (n = 49) | 5 (35.7) | 44 (26.8) | | |
| Grade 3 (n = 129) | 9 (64.3) | 120 (73.2) | | |
| | | 0.082 | | |
| no (n = 126) | 7 (50.0) | 119 (72.1) | | |
| > 0 cm (n = 53) | 7 (50.0) | 46 (27.9) | | |
| | | 0.539 | | |
| no (n = 50) | 5 (35.7) | 45 (27.3) | | |
| yes (n = 129) | 9 (64.3) | 120 (72.7) | | |
| | | 0.869 | | |
| </= 500 ml (n = 106) | 8 (57.1) | 98 (59.4) | | |
| > 500 ml (n = 73) | 6 (42.9) | 67 (40.6) | | |
| | | 0.217 | ||
| N0 and M0 (n = 20) | 4 (28.5) | 16 (9.8) | | |
| N1 and/or M1 (n = 111) | 5 (35.7) | 106 (64.6) | | |
| NX or MX* (n = 48) | 5 (35.7) | 42 (25.6) |
P-values and adjusted p-values below 0.05 are shown in bold. *not included in statistics.
Figure 2Coexpression and distribution of FAK and pFAK-Y397 in MCF7 (breast) and CaOV3 (ovarian) cancer cell lines. An intense FAK (green) and pFAK staining (red) can be observed within the membrane borders, interpreted as focal adhesions (white arrows). DAPI (blue) was used for nuclear counterstaining and Phalloidin (white) for staining of F-actin in the cytoplasm. (Pictures were taken with a confocal microscope LSM 700, Carl Zeiss AG, Germany).
Multiple Cox regression analyses for progression-free and overall survival, both for the proportion of explained variations of clinicopathologic parameters and FAK as well as pFAK for late stage serous ovarian cancer patients (n = 172)
| | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade (3 vs 1,2) | 1.56 (0.91-2.68) | 0.105 | 1.64 (0.83-3.24) | 0.155 |
| Residual tumor (yes vs no) | 1.33 (0.78-2.24) | 0.292 | ||
| FAK (high vs low) | 0.85 (0.41-1.77) | 0.671 | 0.91 (0.37-2.24) | 0.830 |
| 0.80 (0.50-1.27) | 0.343 | |||
| | ||||
| Grade (3 vs 1,2) | 1.32 (0.89-1.97) | 0.171 | 1.01 (0.61-1.66) | 0.971 |
| Residual tumor (yes vs no) | 1.40 (0.91-2.17) | 0.127 | ||
| Yoshihara subclassification (subclass 2 vs 1) | 1.36 (0.90-2.04) | 0.142 | ||
| FAK (high vs low) | 0.87 (0.48-1.58) | 0.654 | 0.89 (0.41-1.95) | 0.776 |
| pFAK (high vs low) | 1.15 (0.81-1.63) | 0.425 | 1.02 (0.66-1.57) | 0.927 |
P-values and adjusted p-values below 0.05 are shown in bold. *n = 141 (due to the limited availability of microarray data).
Figure 3Kaplan–Meier estimates of the univariate impact of FAK (A) and (B) pFAK-Y397 and survival curves of the final Cox regression model (C), corrected for the clinicopathologic parameters age, stage, grade, residual tumor load, peritoneal carcinomatosis, and molecular subclass (i.e. all of these factors were averaged and pFAK was used as stratifying variable) on progression free and overall survival. In contrast to Kaplan-Meier plots, where it is common to indicate censored observations, Figure 1C shows survival estimates derived from the Cox model, as explained in the statistical analysis section. In this plot it is uncommon to graphically show censored observations. pFAK low, n = 90 versus pFAK high, n = 50 patients.