| Literature DB >> 24715586 |
Charlotta Andersson1, Yusuke Oji, Nina Ohlson, Sihan Wang, Xingru Li, Ulrika Ottander, Eva Lundin, Haruo Sugiyama, Aihong Li.
Abstract
Ovarian carcinoma (OC) has a poor prognosis and lack early effective screening markers. Wilm's tumor gene 1 (WT1) is overexpressed in OCs. Therefore, it is of great interest to investigate whether WT1-specific antibody (Ab) measurements in plasma can serve as a biomarker of anti-OC response, and is of importance in relation to patient prognosis. Peripheral blood samples were obtained from a total of 103 women with ovarian tumors with median being 1 day (range 0-48 days) before operation. WT1 IgG Ab levels were evaluated using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Immunohistochemical analysis of WT1 protein expression was performed on OC tissue samples. We found that low-WT1 Ab level in plasma was related to improved survival in patients diagnosed at stages III-IV and grade 3 carcinomas. Positive WT1 protein staining on OC tissue samples had a negative impact on survival in the entire cohort, both overall survival (OS) (P = 0.046) and progression-free survival (PFS) (P = 0.006), but not in the serous OC subtype. Combining WT1 IgG Ab levels and WT1 staining, patients with high-WT1 IgG Ab levels in plasma and positive WT1 protein staining in cancer tissues had shorter survival, with a significant association in PFS (P = 0.016). These results indicated that WT1 Ab measurements in plasma and WT1 staining in tissue specimens could be useful as biomarkers for patient outcome in the high-risk subtypes of OCs for postoperative individualized therapy.Entities:
Keywords: Ovarian carcinoma; WT1; WT1 IgG antibody; prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24715586 PMCID: PMC4303158 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.244
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Med ISSN: 2045-7634 Impact factor: 4.452
Characteristics of patients with ovarian tumors
| Patient characteristics | Number of patients (%) |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | |
| Median | 56 |
| Range | 20–81 |
| Histological classification | |
| Ovarian carcinoma (OC) | 52 (50.5%) |
| Serous adenocarcinoma | 33 (63.5%) |
| Endometrioid adenocarcinoma | 8 (15.4%) |
| Mucinous adenocarcinoma | 5 (9.6%) |
| Clear cell carcinoma | 2 (3.8%) |
| Mixed epithelial tumors | 1 (1.9%) |
| Undifferentiated carcinoma | 3 (5.8%) |
| Borderline tumors | 18 (17.5%) |
| Benign tumors | 33 (32%) |
| FIGO stage | |
| I | 14 (13.6%) |
| II | 4 (3.9%) |
| III | 24 (23.3%) |
| IV | 10 (9.7%) |
| Tumor grade | |
| 1 | 7 (6.8%) |
| 2 | 16 (15.5%) |
| 3 | 26 (25.2%) |
| Follow up (months) | |
| Median | 90.5 |
| Range | 0.9–228.8 |
FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Figure 1Box plots show levels of WT1 IgG Ab titers in plasma samples in different groups of patients with ovarian tumors. No differences in WT1 IgG Ab titers are detected in plasma samples between patients with malignant, borderline, and benign ovarian tumors.
WT1 IgG level and WT1 protein expression in ovarian carcinoma
| WT1 Ab in plasma by ELISA | WT1 protein by IHC | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WT1 <18.8 WRU | WT1 ≥18.8 WRU | Negative | Positive | |||||
| Age | 52 | 1 | 50 | 0.476 | ||||
| <50 years | 12 | 6 (11.5%) | 6 (11.5%) | 11 | 4 (8.0%) | 7 (14.0%) | ||
| ≥50 years | 40 | 20 (38.5%) | 20 (38.5%) | 39 | 10 (20.0%) | 29 (58.0%) | ||
| Histological subtype | 0.840 | <0.001 | ||||||
| Serous | 33 | 16 (30.8%) | 17 (32.7%) | 31 | 1 (2%) | 30 (60%) | ||
| Mucinous | 5 | 3 (5.8%) | 2 (3.8%) | 5 | 5 (10.0%) | 0 | ||
| Endometrioid | 8 | 3 (5.8%) | 5 (9.6%) | 8 | 4 (8.0%) | 4 (8.0%) | ||
| Clear cell | 2 | 1 (1.9%) | 1 (1.9%) | 2 | 2 (4.0%) | 0 | ||
| Mixed epithelial | 1 | 1 (1.9%) | 0 | 1 | 1 (2.0%) | 0 | ||
| Undifferentiated/unclassified | 3 | 2 (3.8%) | 1 (1.9%) | 3 | 1 (2.0%) | 2 (4.0%) | ||
| FIGO stage | 1 | <0.001 | ||||||
| Early (I–II) | 18 | 9 (17.3%) | 9 (17.3%) | 17 | 11 (22.0%) | 6 (12.0%) | ||
| Advanced (III–IV) | 34 | 17 (32.7%) | 17 (32.7%) | 33 | 3 (6.0%) | 30 (60.0%) | ||
| Tumor grade | 0.94 | 0.007 | ||||||
| 1 | 7 | 3 (6.1%) | 4 (8.2%) | 7 | 3 (6.4%) | 4 (8.5%) | ||
| 2 | 16 | 8 (16.3%) | 8 (16.3%) | 14 | 7 (14.9%) | 7 (14.9%) | ||
| 3 | 26 | 13 (26.5%) | 13 (26.5%) | 26 | 2 (4.3%) | 24 (51.1%) | ||
| Disease progression | 0.27 | 0.005 | ||||||
| Event | 27 | 11 (21.2%) | 16 (30.8%) | 27 | 3 (6.0%) | 24 (48.0%) | ||
| Event free | 25 | 15 (28.8%) | 10 (19.2%) | 23 | 11 (22.0%) | 12 (24.0%) | ||
| Overall survival | 0.237 | 0.016 | ||||||
| Survive | 17 | 11 (21.2%) | 6 (11.5%) | 15 | 8 (16.0%) | 7 (14.0%) | ||
| Died | 35 | 15 (28.8%) | 20 (38.5%) | 35 | 6 (12.0%) | 29 (58.0%) | ||
Ab, antibody; ELISA, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; IHC, immunohistochemistry; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Figure 2Kaplan–Meier plot of the progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Patients are grouped based on Wilms' tumor gene 1 (WT1) IgG Ab titer level. Median (18.8 WRU) is used for a cut-off level. (A) PFS for entire cohort of ovarian carcinoma patients. (B) PFS for patients with serous ovarian carcinoma. (C) PFS for patients with nonserous subtypes. (D) PFS for patients diagnosed with advanced clinical stages III or IV. (E) PFS for patients identified with grade 3.
Figure 3Immunohistochemical detection of the WT1 protein showed nuclear immunoreactivity in epithelial cells in ovarian serous adenocarcinoma (A) and negative staining in benign ovarian mucinous cystadenoma (B). Original magnification 400×.
Figure 4Kaplan–Meier plot of the survival in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Patients are grouped according to immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining (positive or negative) of the Wilms' tumor gene 1 (WT1). (A) Overall survival (OS) for 50 patients studied. (B) Progression-free survival (PFS) for patients included in the study. (C) OS for patients with serous ovarian carcinoma. (D) PFS for patients with serous ovarian carcinoma. (E) PFS for patients with nonserous subtypes. (F) OS for patients with nonserous subtypes.
Figure 5Kaplan–Meier plot of the progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with ovarian carcinoma. Patients are grouped by combing WT1 IgG Ab levels detected in plasma and WT1 protein staining in ovarian carcinoma specimens. (A) Poorer PFS for patients with high-WT1 IgG Ab level and positive WT1 protein staining compared with others including patients with low-IgG Ab level and/or WT1 staining negative. (B) PFS for serous ovarian carcinoma patients with high-WT1 IgG Ab level and positive WT1 protein staining compared with others including patients with low-IgG Ab level and/or WT1 staining negative. (C) PFS for nonserous subtypes of patients with high-WT1 IgG Ab level and positive WT1 protein staining compared with others including patients with low-IgG Ab level and/or WT1 staining negative. (D) PFS for patients diagnosed with grade 3. The log-rank test shows significant differences in PFS between with high-WT1 IgG Ab level and positive WT1 protein staining and others including patients with low IgG Ab level and/or WT1 staining negative.