| Literature DB >> 25013472 |
Hui Xiao1, Juan Wang1, Yanan Liu1, Li Li1.
Abstract
c-Kit and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have critical roles in cell proliferation and differentiation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The present study aimed to investigate the prognostic impact of c-Kit and/or EGFR expression in tumor tissue samples from 146 patients with NSCLC. c-Kit expression was analyzed using immunohistochemistry and the expression of EGFR was assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified that c-Kit is a significant negative prognostic factor. The expression of c-Kit was correlated with poor differentiation, pleura involvement and smoking history (P=0.043, 0.007 and 0.032, respectively). Furthermore, patients with c-Kit-positive expression were associated with a significantly lower overall survival compared with those exhibiting c-Kit-negative expression (P=0.048). The median follow-up time was 19 months post-surgery. EGFR gene amplification as a result of polysomy of chromosome 7 was found to be negatively correlated with poor differentiation and smoking history (P=0.023 and 0.044, respectively). The findings of the present study indicate that c-Kit and EGFR expression is a strong, independent, negative prognostic factor in NSCLC.Entities:
Keywords: c-Kit; epidermal growth factor receptor; lung cancer; survival
Year: 2014 PMID: 25013472 PMCID: PMC4081302 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2014.2173
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncol Lett ISSN: 1792-1074 Impact factor: 2.967
Clinicopathological characteristics of patients with non-small cell lung cancer who underwent immunohistochemical analysis to detect c-Kit expression and FISH analysis to detect EGFR expression.
| c-Kit | EGFR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| Characteristic | − | + | − | + |
| Total patients (n=146) | 78 | 68 | 88 | 58 |
| Gender | ||||
| Male (n=84) | 45 | 39 | 52 | 32 |
| Female (n=62) | 33 | 29 | 36 | 26 |
| P-value | 0.319 | - | 0.416 | - |
| Age (years) | ||||
| ≤65 (n=60) | 27 | 33 | 25 | 35 |
| >65 (n=86) | 51 | 35 | 63 | 23 |
| P-value | 0.806 | - | 0.223 | - |
| Tumor size (cm) | ||||
| ≤3 (n=70) | 40 | 30 | 40 | 30 |
| >3 (n=76) | 38 | 38 | 48 | 28 |
| P-value | 0.501 | - | 0.187 | - |
| Differentiation | ||||
| Well (n=40) | 20 | 20 | 17 | 23 |
| Moderate (n=61) | 33 | 28 | 40 | 21 |
| Poor (n=45) | 25 | 20 | 31 | 14 |
| P-value | 0.043 | - | 0.023 | - |
| Histology | ||||
| SCC (n=68) | 37 | 31 | 42 | 26 |
| Adenocarcinoma (n=78) | 41 | 37 | 46 | 32 |
| P-value | 0.280 | - | 0.632 | - |
| Pathological stage | ||||
| I (n=50) | 27 | 23 | 32 | 18 |
| II (n=49) | 23 | 26 | 26 | 23 |
| III (n=36) | 25 | 11 | 24 | 12 |
| IV (n=11) | 3 | 8 | 6 | 5 |
| P-value | 0.923 | 0.223 | ||
| Nodal status | ||||
| No (n=80) | 40 | 40 | 52 | 28 |
| Yes (n=66) | 38 | 28 | 36 | 30 |
| P-value | 0.418 | - | 0.069 | - |
| Vascular infiltration | ||||
| No (n=90) | 51 | 39 | 54 | 36 |
| Yes (n=56) | 27 | 29 | 34 | 22 |
| P-value | 0.516 | - | 0.176 | - |
| Nerve infiltration | ||||
| No (n=93) | 45 | 48 | 58 | 35 |
| Yes (n=53) | 33 | 20 | 30 | 23 |
| P-value | 0.658 | - | 0.138 | - |
| Smoking history | ||||
| Never (n=41) | 19 | 22 | 29 | 12 |
| Current (n=32) | 19 | 13 | 16 | 16 |
| Former (n=73) | 50 | 23 | 43 | 30 |
| P-value | 0.032 | - | 0.044 | - |
| Involving the pleura | ||||
| No (n=100) | 53 | 47 | 54 | 46 |
| Yes (n=46) | 25 | 21 | 34 | 12 |
| P-value | 0.007 | - | 0.150 | - |
| TNM | ||||
| T1–T2 (n=124) | 74 | 50 | 76 | 48 |
| T3–T4 (n=22) | 4 | 18 | 12 | 10 |
| P-value | 0.416 | - | 0.480 | - |
P-value is for the comparison between the parameters presented under each subheading. P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference. FISH, fluorescence in situ hybridization; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; −, negative expression; +, positive expression; SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; TNM, tumor-node-metastasis.
Figure 1c-Kit and EGFR expression in NSCLC detected using immunohistochemistry and FISH assay. (A) c-Kit-negative NSCLC (magnification, ×200) and (B) c-Kit-positive squamous cell carcinomas cells (magnification, ×200). (C) No amplification of the EGFR and (D) amplification of the EGFR. EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; FISH, fluorescence in situ hybridization.
c-Kit and EGFR distribution in patients with NSCLC.
| EGFR, n (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| c-Kit | + | Total, n | |
| 42 (28.76) | 36 (24.65) | 78 | |
| + | 46 (31.51) | 22 (15.07) | 68 |
| Total | 88 | 58 | 146 |
−, negative expression; +, positive expression; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer.
Figure 2Disease-specific survival curves according to c-Kit expression. (A) Patients with c-Kit-positive expression had a lower survival rate than those with c-Kit-negative expression (median survival, 19 months vs. 24 months; P=0.048). (B) Among the c-Kit-negative patients with NSCLC, there was no significant difference in overall survival in the patients with negative EGFR expression compared with those with positive EGFR expression. (C) Among the patients with positive c-Kit expression, the patients who also exhibited a positive EGFR expression had a lower overall survival compared with those who had negative EGFR expression. EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer.
Figure 3Disease-specific survival curves according to EGFR expression. (A) There was no significant difference in survival in patients with positive EGFR expression compared with those with negative EGFR expression (median survival, 15 months vs. 19 months; P=0.91). (B) Among the patients with negative EGFR expression, there was no significant difference in overall survival in the patients with negative c-Kit expression compared with those with positive c-Kit expression. (C) Among the patients with positive EGFR expression, the patients who alos had positive c-Kit expression had a lower survival than those those had negative c-Kit expression.