| Literature DB >> 25296567 |
Masaaki Takai, Yoshito Terai, Hiroshi Kawaguchi, Keisuke Ashihara, Satoe Fujiwara, Tomohito Tanaka, Satoshi Tsunetoh, Yoshimichi Tanaka, Hiroshi Sasaki, Masanori Kanemura, Akiko Tanabe, Masahide Ohmichi.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The epithelial-mesenchymal-transition (EMT) is an important step in the invasion and metastasis of cancer. A critical molecular feature of this process is the downregulation of the E-cadherin expression, which is primarily controlled by Snail-related zinc-finger transcription factors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic impact of the expression of EMT-related proteins (E-cadherin and Snail) in patients with ovarian cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25296567 PMCID: PMC4127950 DOI: 10.1186/1757-2215-7-76
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ovarian Res ISSN: 1757-2215 Impact factor: 4.234
Figure 1Representative example of sequential sections immunohistochemically stained with Snail and E-cadherin in ovarian endometrioid adenocarcinoma G1 (A) and clear cell carcinoma (B) (A, B 40× original magnification). (A) The E-cadherin expression was scored as 0, as indicated in the Materials and methods, while the Snail expression was detected primarily in the nucleus of the tumor cells and scored as 3+, as indicated in the Materials and methods. (B) The E-cadherin expression was scored as 3+, as indicated in the Materials and methods, while the Snail expression was detected primarily in the cytoplasm of the tumor cells, not in the nucleus, and scored as 0, as indicated in the Materials and methods. The scale bars represent 100 μm.
Results of immunohistochemistry
| Age | | | 0.80 | | | 0.14 |
| < 50 | 29 (61.7) | 18 (38.3) | | 27 (57.4) | 20 (42.6) | |
| ≥ 50 | 81 (63.8) | 46 (36.2) | | 88 (69.3) | 39 (30.7) | |
| Histology | | | <0.01 | | | <0.05 |
| Serous | 30 (62.5) | 18 (37.5) | | 34 (70.8) | 14 (29.2) | |
| Mucinous | 17 (81.0) | 4 (19.0) | | 7 (33.3) | 14 (66.7) | |
| Clear | 16 (50.0) | 16 (50.0) | | 23 (71.9) | 9 (28.1) | |
| Endometrioid | 27 (84.4) | 5 (15.6) | | 22 (68.8) | 10 (31.2) | |
| SSPC | 13 (50.0) | 13 (50.0) | | 17 (65.4) | 9 (34.6) | |
| Others | 7 (46.7) | 8 (53.3) | | 12 (80.0) | 3 (20.0) | |
| FIGO stage | | | 0.39 | | | 0.68 |
| I | 39 (69.6) | 17 (30.4) | | 40 (71.4) | 16 (28.6) | |
| II | 9 (64.3) | 5 (35.7) | | 10 (71.4) | 4 (28.6) | |
| III | 53 (62.3) | 32 (37.7) | | 53 (62.3) | 32 (37.7) | |
| IV | 9 (47.3) | 10 (52.7) | | 12 (63.2) | 7 (36.8) | |
| Peritoneal cytology | | | 0.91 | | | 0.18 |
| Positive | 85 (63.4) | 49 (36.6) | | 85 (63.4) | 49(36.6) | |
| Negative | 25 (62.5) | 15 (37.5) | | 30 (75.0) | 10 (25.0) | |
| Lymph node metastasis | | | 0.25 | | | 0.14 |
| Positive | 22 (66.7) | 11 (33.3) | | 19 (57.6) | 14 (42.4) | |
| Negative | 60 (67.4) | 29 (32.6) | | 65 (73.0) | 24 (27.0) | |
| Nx* | 28 (53.8) | 24 (46.2) | | 31 (59.6) | 21 (40.4) | |
| Peritoneal dissemination | | | 0.09 | | | 0.10 |
| Positive | 54 (57.4) | 40 (42.6) | | 57 (60.6) | 37 (39.4) | |
| Negative | 56 (70.0) | 24 (30.0) | | 58 (72.5) | 22 (27.5) | |
| Recurrence | | | <0.01 | | | 0.73 |
| − | 30 (44.1) | 38 (55.9) | | 46 (67.6) | 22 (32.4) | |
| + | 80 (75.5) | 26 (24.5) | | 69 (65.1) | 37 (34.9) | |
| End stage | | | <0.05 | | | 0.09 |
| Alive | 79 (68.7) | 36 (31.3) | | 81 (70.4) | 34 (29.6) | |
| Dead | 31 (52.5) | 28 (47.5) | 34 (57.6) | 25 (42.4) | ||
*Nx: no lymphadenectomy.
EMT status
| Age | | | 0.41 |
| < 50 | 11 (22.9) | 37 (77.1) | |
| ≥ 50 | 22 (17.5) | 104 (82.5) | |
| Histology | | | 0.11 |
| Serous | 8 (16.7) | 40 (83.3) | |
| Mucinous | 3 (14.3) | 18 (85.7) | |
| Clear | 11 (34.4) | 21 (65.6) | |
| Endometrioid | 2 (6.2) | 30 (93.8) | |
| SSPC | 6 (23.1) | 20 (76.9) | |
| Others | 3 (20.0) | 12 (80.0) | |
| FIGO stage | | | 0.38 |
| I | 7 (12.5) | 49 (87.5) | |
| II | 4 (28.6) | 10 (71.4) | |
| III | 17 (20.0) | 68 (80.0) | |
| IV | 5 (26.3) | 14 (73.7) | |
| Lymph node metastasis | | | 0.15 |
| Positive | 9 (27.3) | 24 (72.7) | |
| Negative | 12 (13.5) | 77 (86.5) | |
| Nx* | 12 (23.1) | 40 (76.9) | |
| peritoneal cytology | | | 0.12 |
| Positive | 22 (16.4) | 112 (83.6) | |
| Negative | 11 (27.5) | 29 (72.5) | |
| Peritoneal metastasis | | | <0.05 |
| Positive | 24 (25.5) | 70 (74.5) | |
| Negative | 9 (11.3) | 71 (88.7) | |
*Nx: no lymphadenectomy.
Comparison of the primary and disseminated tumors
| | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| E-cadherin | | | 0.47 |
| Reduced | 16 (47.1) | 19 (55.9) | |
| Preserved | 18 (52.9) | 15 (44.1) | |
| Snail | | | 0.32 |
| Positive | 11 (32.4) | 15 (44.1) | |
| Negative | 23 (67.6) | 19 (55.9) |
Figure 2Survival curves for the 174 ovarian cancer patients generated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. The progression-free and overall survival rates of the patients were stratified according to the EMT status. The EMT status, as represented by both a reduced E-cadherin expression and the presence of a nuclear Snail expression, was defined as positive. The P-values were calculated using the log-rank test.
Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors
| Lymph node metastasis | 5.14 | 2.15-12.8 | <0.01 |
| peritoneal cytology | 3.25 | 1.31-8.93 | <0.05 |
| Peritoneal metastasis | 2.19 | 1.01-4.89 | <0.05 |
| EMT status | 2.90 | 1.16-7.53 | <0.05 |
*CI: confidence interval.