| Literature DB >> 25056203 |
Huilin Zhang1, Jinrong Qiu2, Chunping Ye3, Dazhen Yang3, Lingjuan Gao3, Yiping Su3, Xiaojun Tang4, Ning Xu4, Dawei Zhang5, Lin Xiong6, Yuan Mao7, Fengshan Li8, Jin Zhu9.
Abstract
The receptor-tyrosine-kinase-like orphan receptor 1 (ROR1) is a transmembrane protein belongs to receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) family. This study aimed to examine the expression of ROR1 in human ovarian cancer and investigate the relationship between its expression and the prognosis of ovarian cancer patients. In this present study, one-step quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (15 ovarian cancer samples of high FIGO stage, 15 ovarian cancer samples of low FIGO stage and nine normal ovary tissue samples) and immunohistochemistry by tissue microarrays (100 ovarian cancer samples and 50 normal ovary samples) were performed to characterize expression of the ROR1 gene in ovarian cancer. Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox regression analyses were executed to evaluate the prognosis of ovarian cancer. The results of qPCR and IHC analysis showed that the expression of ROR1 in ovarian cancer was significantly higher than that in normal ovary tissues (all p < 0.05). Survival analysis showed that ROR1 protein expression was one of the independent prognostic factors for disease-free survival and overall survival (both p < 0.05). The data suggest that ROR1 expression is correlated with malignant attributes of ovarian cancer and it may serve as a novel prognostic marker in ovarian cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25056203 PMCID: PMC4108928 DOI: 10.1038/srep05811
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Relationship of high ROR1 expression with clinicopathological characteristics in ovarian cancer
| ROR1 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groups | No. | + | % | χ2 | p value |
| Age (years) | |||||
| ≥60 | 54 | 31 | 57.4 | 0.2749 | 0.600 |
| <60 | 46 | 24 | 52.2 | ||
| Tumor diameter (cm) | |||||
| ≥5 | 64 | 36 | 56.3 | 0.1122 | 0.738 |
| <5 | 36 | 19 | 52.8 | ||
| FIGO stage | |||||
| I + II | 56 | 25 | 44.6 | 5.5162 | 0.019 |
| III + IV | 44 | 30 | 68.2 | ||
| Tumor grade | |||||
| Grade 1 | 25 | 8 | 32.0 | 7.2323 | 0.027 |
| Grade 2 | 50 | 32 | 64.0 | ||
| Grade 3 | 25 | 15 | 68.0 | ||
| Histological type | |||||
| Serous-papillary | 76 | 40 | 53.1 | 4.0174 | 0.260 |
| Clear cell | 6 | 4 | 66.7 | ||
| Mucinous | 10 | 8 | 80.0 | ||
| Endometrioid | 8 | 3 | 37.5 | ||
| Serum CA-125 level (U/ml) | |||||
| ≥35 | 52 | 29 | 55.8 | 0.0259 | 0.872 |
| <35 | 48 | 26 | 54.2 | ||
| Ascites | |||||
| Positive | 63 | 30 | 47.6 | 3.7479 | 0.053 |
| Negative | 37 | 25 | 67.6 | ||
| Lymph node metastasis | |||||
| Positive | 35 | 25 | 71.4 | 5.8719 | 0.015 |
| Negative | 65 | 30 | 46.2 | ||
| Relapse status | |||||
| Positive | 43 | 21 | 48.8 | 1.1576 | 0.282 |
| Negative | 57 | 34 | 59.6 | ||
*p < 0.05.
Figure 1One-step quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was employed to evaluate ROR1 mRNA expression levels in ovarian cancer compared with normal ovary tissues.
The ROR1 mRNA levels in both high and low FIGO stage ovarian cancer samples were significantly higher than that in normal ovary tissue, when normalized to PPIA, ACTB and TBP mRNA levels (*p < 0.05).
Figure 2Representative pattern of ROR1 protein expression in ovarian cancer and normal ovary tissue with tissue microarray (TMA) sections.
(A1), (A2) and (A3) High immunohistochemical (IHC) staining of ROR1 in serous-papillary type of ovarian cancer sample. (B1), (B2) and (B3) High IHC staining of ROR1 in clear cell type of ovarian cancer tissue sample. (C1), (C2) and (C3) High IHC staining of ROR1 in mucinous type of ovarian cancer tissue sample. (D1), (D2) and (D3) High IHC staining of ROR1 in endometrioid type of ovarian cancer tissue sample. (E1), (E2) and (E3) Low IHC staining of ROR1 in normal ovary tissue sample. Original magnification ×40 in (A1), (B1), (C1), (D1) and (E1); ×200 in (A2), (B2), (C2), (D2) and (E2); ×400 in (A3), (B3), (C3), (D3) and (E3).
Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors in ovarian cancer for disease-free survival
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | p > |z| | 95% CI | HR | p > |z| | 95% CI | |
| ROR1 expression | ||||||
| High versus Low | 2.15 | 0.005 | 1.265–3.656 | 2.90 | 0.001 | 1.639–5.128 |
| Age | ||||||
| ≥60 years versus <60 years | 0.80 | 0.397 | 0.483–1.335 | |||
| Tumour diameter | ||||||
| ≥5 cm versus <5 cm | 1.01 | 0.968 | 0.588–1.738 | |||
| FIGO stage | ||||||
| Stage I and II versus Stage III and IV | 0.29 | 0.001 | 0.168–0.485 | 0.23 | 0.002 | 0.089–0.594 |
| Tumor grade | ||||||
| Grade 1 versus Grade 2 and 3 | 0.65 | 0.164 | 0.358–1.190 | |||
| Histological type | ||||||
| Serous versus Nonserous | 0.65 | 0.110 | 0.379–1.103 | |||
| Serum CA-125 level | ||||||
| ≥35 U/ml versus <35 U/ml | 1.16 | 0.581 | 0.688–1.948 | |||
| Ascites | ||||||
| Positive versus Negative | 0.93 | 0.778 | 0.545–1.576 | |||
| Lymph node metastasis | ||||||
| Positive versus Negative | 3.25 | 0.001 | 1.910–5.533 | 1.08 | 0.872 | 0.434–2.678 |
| Relapse status | ||||||
| Positive versus Negative | 1.73 | 0.559 | 0.664–1.587 | |||
*p < 0.05.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors in ovarian cancer for overall survival
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | p > |z| | 95% CI | HR | p > |z| | 95% CI | |
| ROR1 expression | ||||||
| High versus Low | 3.04 | 0.001 | 1.757–5.246 | 3.54 | 0.001 | 1.990–6.289 |
| Age | ||||||
| ≥60 years versus <60 years | 0.70 | 0.163 | 0.421–1.157 | |||
| Tumour diameter | ||||||
| ≥5 cm versus <5 cm | 1.33 | 0.311 | 0.766–2.313 | |||
| FIGO stage | ||||||
| Stage I and II versus Stage III and IV | 0.21 | 0.001 | 0.122–0.378 | 0.30 | 0.015 | 0.113–0.790 |
| Tumor grade | ||||||
| Grade 1 versus Grade 2 and 3 | 0.44 | 0.009 | 0.241–0.820 | 1.15 | 0.715 | 0.544–2.433 |
| Histological type | ||||||
| Serous versus Nonserous | 0.72 | 0.235 | 0.423–1.235 | |||
| Serum CA-125 level | ||||||
| ≥35 U/ml versus <35 U/ml | 1.36 | 0.250 | 0.806–2.292 | |||
| Ascites | ||||||
| Positive versus Negative | 0.72 | 0.221 | 0.421–1.221 | |||
| Lymph node metastasis | ||||||
| Positive versus Negative | 4.47 | 0.001 | 2.552–7.821 | 2.01 | 0.141 | 0.795–5.060 |
| Relapse status | ||||||
| Positive versus Negative | 2.21 | 0.364 | 0.209–1.306 | |||
*p < 0.05.
Figure 3Survival analysis of ovarian cancer patients by Kaplan-Meier method.
(A) Disease-free survival rate in patients with high ROR1 expression (red line) was significantly lower than that in patients with low and no ROR1 expression (black line). (B) Disease-free survival rate in patients with grade 2 and 3 of FIGO stage (red line) was significantly lower than that in patients with grade 1 of FIGO (black line). (C) Overall survival rate in patients with high ROR1 expression (red line) was significantly lower than that in patients with low and no ROR1 expression (black line). (D) Overall survival rate in patients with grade 2 and 3 of FIGO stage (red line) was significantly lower than that in patients with grade 1 of FIGO (black line).