Literature DB >> 25592281

Clinical significance of hepatocyte growth factor/c-Met expression in the assessment of gastric cancer progression.

Eiichiro Noguchi1, Noboru Saito1, Makio Kobayashi2, Shingo Kameoka1.   

Abstract

Among the mechanisms that control cancer progression, cell mobility is a significant factor required for cellular liberation from the primary focus and infiltration. Hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) has been shown to facilitate cell mobility. In the present study, the clinical significance of the HGF/c‑Met pathway in the assessment of gastric cancer progression was evaluated. From a cohort of patients with gastric cancer who underwent surgical resection between April 1999 and March 2003, 110 subjects were randomly selected. Preoperative serum HGF levels were measured and various pathological factors were analyzed. Furthermore, 50 subjects were randomly selected from within this group and immunohistochemical staining of tissue preparations for HGF and its receptor c‑Met were performed. In the infiltrative growth pattern [(INF)α,β vs. INFγ], advanced progression was associated with elevated preoperative serum HGF levels (P<0.001). No correlation was identified between serum HGF levels and immunostaining for HGF or c‑Met in the tissue preparations. Immunostaining revealed a significant correlation between c‑Met expression and lymphatic vessel invasion (ly0.1 vs. 2.3; P=0.0416), lymph node metastasis (n0.1 vs. 2; P=0.0184) and maximum tumor diameter (≤50 mm vs. >50 mm; P=0.0469). Furthermore, c‑Met‑positivity was associated with a significant difference in overall survival (P=0.0342), despite stage I and II cases accounting for 82% of the total cohort (41 of 50 cases). These results suggested that the expression of the HGF/c‑Met pathway in gastric cancer may be a potential predictive factor for disease progression.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25592281      PMCID: PMC4368069          DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2015.3205

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Med Rep        ISSN: 1791-2997            Impact factor:   2.952


Introduction

Among the mechanisms that mediate cancer progression, cell mobility is a significant factor necessary for liberation from the primary focus and infiltration. Various cell growth factors (1–5), including epidermal growth factor, transforming growth factor β (6,7) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) (8), are known to facilitate cell mobility. HGF, which was first isolated and cloned by Nakamura et al (9–12), performs various biological activities in cells, including stimulation of cell growth, promotion of migration, induction of morphogenesis and anti-apoptotic activities, via the c-Met receptor, which is a transmembrane protein containing a tyrosine kinase domain (13–15). The involvement of HGF in the infiltration/metastasis of cancer cells was first suggested in 1991, in a study in which the scatter factor, isolated as a fibroblast-derived bioactive factor with cell stimulatory activities in various cultured epithelial and cancer cells, was found to share an identical structure to that of the HGF molecule (16,17). The functions of HGF were further elucidated by in vitro and in vivo analyses using various types of cancer cell (18,19). Activation of the HGF/c-Met pathway leads to simultaneous activation of multiple signal transduction pathways that promote the infiltration of cancer cells and is considered to underlie the potent infiltrative/stimulatory effect of HGF (20–25). Genetic mutations of the c-Met receptor have been reported in various cancer types, including papillary renal (20–21), hepatic (22), gastric (23) and pulmonary cancer (24,25), and the overexpression of c-Met has also been reported in numerous cancer tissues (26). Therefore, if the c-Met receptor is present in cancer cells, HGF antagonists should be able to inhibit multiple signal transduction pathways that lead to cancer cell infiltration, thereby exerting potential anti-cancer effects (27). In a previous study by our group, an association between elevated pre-operative serum HGF levels and advanced disease stages in colon cancer was identified, mainly regarding the depth of tumor invasion into the wall and liver metastasis, which suggested the expression of the HGF/c-Met pathway as a potential predictive factor of colon cancer progression (8). In the present study, serological and immunohistological analyses were conducted in order to evaluate the clinical significance of the expression of the HGF/c-Met pathway in assessing the stage of gastric cancer progression.

Materials and methods

Patients

Subjects (n=110) were randomly selected from a cohort of patients with gastric cancer who underwent surgical resection at the Department of Surgery II, Tokyo Women’s Medical University (Tokyo, Japan) between April 1999 and March 2003. Verbal consent was obtained from all patients upon hospitalization and written consent was obtained on the inpatient treatment plan. The study was conducted in 2005 in accordance with the ethical guidelines established by the updated Declaration of Helsinki and Tokyo Women’s Medical University. Preoperative serum HGF levels in these subjects were measured and various pathological factors were analyzed. For 50 of these patients, immunohistochemical staining of tissue preparations for HGF and c-Met was additionally performed in order to analyze various factors identified in serological analysis. The subjects comprised 83 males and 27 females aged 29–84 years [mean ± standard deviation (SD), 62.8±9.9 years]. The tissue samples were histologically classified as follows: Four as papillary adenocarcinoma, 51 as tubular adenocarcinoma (25 as well-differentiated and 26 as moderately differentiated), 45 as poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, six as signet-ring cell carcinoma and three as mucinous adenocarcinoma. The histological classification of invasion depth was as follows: Mucosa (m) in 28 patients, submucosa (sm) in 31 patients, muscularis propria (mp) in 11 patients, subserosa (ss) in 18 patients and serosa (se) in 22 patients. The stage classification was IA in 55 patients, IB in 18 patients, II in 16 patients, IIIA in nine patients, IIIB in six patients and IV in six patients (Table I). Data obtained from 200 healthy individuals were used as the control. Healthy individuals comprised patients undergoing surgery for benign diseases, including inguinal hernia or hemorrhoid, and healthy volunteers. Classification of infiltrative growth pattern (INF) was performed according to the General Rules for the Gastric Cancer Society, by the Japanese Research Society for Gastric Cancer, which is based on the Union for International Cancer Control criteria (28).
Table I

Clinicopathological factors and serum HGF.

FactornSerum HGF (pg/ml)P-value
Gastric cancer110391.02±68.44<0.0001
Control200193.30±52.00
Stagea
 IA55381.21±65.92NS
 IB18414.41±82.48
 II16378.28±47.01
 IIIA9404.64±65.95
 IIIB6402.38±93.44
 IV6412.94±71.45
Depth
 m28378.89±58.81NS
 sm31384.87±69.89
 mp11386.97±98.72
 ss18403.36±54.88
 s22407.04±71.75
INFa
 α22369.65±68.93<0.001 (α.β vs. γ)
 β37367.34±59.68
 γ44418.42±67.72
Histological type
 well25387.23±54.56NS
 mod26379.56±80.35
 poor45399.25±70.48
 sig6404.95±74.10
 muc3361.36±77.65
 pap4396.12±54.23
Macroscopic type
 059382.03±64.39NS
 0-advanced9364.13±68.61
 14426.32±66.53
 216404.70±87.33
 310402.00±43.63
 411423.53±72.43
 51335.54±0.000
Lymphatic invasion
 ly048384.71±63.69NS
 ly137391.22±70.67
 ly221398.01±76.63
 ly34428.13±68.74
Venous invasion
 v089387.92±67.32NS
 v120404.99±75.03
 v21387.52±0.000
Lymph node metastasis
 n078391.17±70.37NS
 n117382.79±58.94
 n213394.60±68.08
 n30
 n42431.73±116.00NS
Peritoneal dissemination
 p0105389.37±68.19NS
 p15425.58±71.99
Tumor size, mm
 ≤–7097384.64±66.22NS
 >7010428.09±61.82

Classification of INF was performed according to the General Rules for the Gastric Cancer Society by the Japanese Research Society for Gastric Cancer. Values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation.

HGF, hepatocyte growth factor; NS, not significant; m, mucosa; sm, submucosa; mp, muscularis propria; ss, subserosa; s, serosa; INF, infiltrative growth pattern; INFα, expansive type (tumor margin is clear); INFβ, intermediate type; INFγ, invasive type (tumor margin is unclear); well, well-differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma; mod, moderately differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma; poor, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; sig, signet-ring cell carcinoma; muc, mucinous adenocarcinoma; pap, papillary adenocarcinoma.

The 50 subjects that were subjected to immunostaining comprised 38 males and 12 females, with a mean age of 61.8±10.6 years (range, 29–81 years). The tissue samples were histologically classified as follows: One as papillary adenocarcinoma, 23 as tubular adenocarcinoma (12 well-differentiated and 11 moderately differentiated), 20 as poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, five as signet-ring cell carcinoma and one as mucinous adenocarcinoma. The histological classification of invasion depth was as follows: m in 13 patients, sm in 15 patients, mp in five patients, ss in eight patients and se in nine patients. The stage classification was IA in 25 patients, IB in seven patients, II in nine patients, IIIA in four patients, IIIB in two patients and IV in three patients (Table II).
Table II

Correlation between HGF/c-Met overexpression and clinicopathological factors.

HGF expressionc-Met expression


Factornsubtotal(−)(+)P-value(−)(+)P-value
All5014362525
Gender
 Male38
 Female12
Stage
 IA25411229NS2318NS
 IB7
 II9
 IIIA492727
 IIIB2
 IV3
Depth
 m131358NS94NS
 sm15379281621
 mp5
 ss8
 se9
INF
 α10321022NS1616NS
 β22
 γ171731489
Histological type
 well1223518NS1112NS
 mod11
 poor20258171312
 sig5
 muc1
 pap1
Lymphatic invasion
 ly027431231NS24190.0416
 ly116
 ly2472516
 ly33
Venous invasion
 v043431132NS2320NS
 v1773425
 v20
Lymph node metastasis
 n034451233NS25200.0184
 n111
 n2552305
 n30
 n40
Peritoneal dissemination
 p047471433NS2423NS
 p13303NS12NS
Tumor size (mm)
 ≤5038381226NS22160.0469
 >50121221039
Serum HGF (pg/ml)
 ≤40036361026NS1719NS
 >400141441086

Mean age (standard deviation) of subjects, 61.8 (10.6) years. HGF, hepatocyte growth factor; SD, standard deviation; NS, not significant; m, mucosa; sm, submucosa; mp, muscularis propria; ss, subserosa; s, serosa; INF, infiltrative growth pattern; INFα, expansive type (tumor margin is clear); INFβ, intermediate type; INFγ, invasive type (tumor margin is unclear); well, well-differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma; mod, moderately differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma; poor, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; sig, signet-ring cell carcinoma; muc, mucinous adenocarcinoma; pap, papillary adenocarcinoma.

Serological analysis

Serum was obtained by centrifugation of venous blood collected prior to surgery at 1,000–2,000 × g for 10 min, which was stored frozen at −80°C and thawed at the time of measurement. HGF levels were measured using a two-step sandwich HGF ELISA kit (Otsuka, Tokyo, Japan), which included the antibodies and o-Phenylenediamine substrate solution, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. In the first reaction, 50 μl phosphate-buffered saline (PBS; Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Ltd, Osaka, Japan) and 50 μl sample were added to each well of a microtiter plate, which was sealed and incubated at room temperature for 1 h with agitation. Following removal of the reaction mixture, the plate was washed five times with wash buffer (Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Ltd). Subsequently, 100 μl/well rabbit polyclonal anti-HGF primary antibody was added for the second reaction and incubated for 1 h at room temperature. Following aspiration and washing five times, 100 μl/well of the horseradish peroxidase-conjugated goat anti-rabbit immunoglobulin G secondary antibody was added for the third reaction and incubated for 1 h at room temperature. Following aspiration and washing five times, 100 μl/well o-Phenylenediamine substrate solution was added. Following incubation at room temperature for 10 min, the reaction was stopped by adding 100 μl of stop solution. Absorbance was measured at 420 nm using a microplate reader (SpectraMax Plus 384; Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), and HGF levels were determined using a standard curve.

Immunohistological analysis

HGF: Following deparaffinization with petroleum benzene (Kanto Chemical Co., Inc., Tokyo, Japan) of the 20% formalin-fixed (Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Ltd) paraffin-embedded (Junsei Chemical Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) sections (4 μm), which included the innermost tumor portion of each gastric cancer primary focus, the sections were immersed in PBS and exposed to microwaves at 95°C for 15 min to activate the antigens. Subsequently, the tissue sections were treated with 3% H2O2 (Sankyo Kagaku Yakuhin Co., Ltd, Kanagawa, Japan) for 20 min to remove the intrinsic peroxidase activity and immunohistochemical staining was performed using the avidin-biotin-peroxidase complex (ABC) method. Following dilution of the reaction with normal horse serum at room temperature for 10 min, rabbit polyclonal anti-human HGF antibody (dilution, 1:20; IBL Co., Ltd, Gunma, Japan) was used as the primary antibody and incubation was continued at room temperature for 60 min. This was followed by reaction with a biotin-conjugated anti-mouse immunoglobulin G secondary antibody (DAKO Japan, Kyoto, Japan) at room temperature for 30 min and reaction with the ABC reagent (DAKO, Glostrup, Denmark) at room temperature for 30 min. The color was developed by addition of 20% 3,3′-diaminobenzidine tetrahydrochloride (Dojindo Laboratories, Kumamoto, Japan), the nuclei were stained with hematoxylin (Merck Millipore KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) and the sections were dehydrated. c-Met: c-Met was assayed in a similar manner to HGF, except that the antigen was activated by autoclaving at 95°C for 15 min and a rabbit polyclonal anti-human c-Met primary antibody (dilution, 1:20; IBL Co., Ltd.) was allowed to react at room temperature for 1 h. Microscopic examination of HGF and c-Met was performed on the tip of the tumor, particularly the innermost section. Three fields of each section were observed at 200× magnification using a BHS/System Living microscope (Olympus Corp., Tokyo, Japan) and the results were classified as positive when the ratio of stained cancer cells was >25%, according to previous studies that were analyzed for comparison (Fig. 1) (8,29–31).
Figure 1

Immunostaining of HGF and c-Met. Microscopic examination was conducted on the tip of the tumor, particularly the innermost part. By observing three fields at 200× magnification, the results were classified as positive if the ratio of stained cancer cells was >25%, as analyzed by comparison. (A) Negative HGF staining. (B) Positive HGF staining. (C) Negative c-Met staining. (D) Positive c-Met staining. HGF, hepatocyte growth factor.

Statistical analysis

JMP version 9.0.2 statistical software (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA) was used for statistical analyses. Values are presented as the mean ± SD. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences between two independent groups. Cumulative survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and distributions were identified using the log-rank test. P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference between values. The terminology used in this report is in accordance with the General Rules of the Gastric Cancer Society by the Japanese Research Society for Gastric Cancer (28).

Results

Serological analysis of HGF

Significant differences were detected in preoperative HGF levels between the gastric cancer and control groups (391.0±68.4 vs. 193.3±52.0 pg/ml, respectively; P<0.0001). There was no correlation between preoperative serum HGF levels and patient age or gender. The results of analyses to identify correlations between serum HGF levels and clinicopathological factors are shown in Table I. Advanced progression in the INFα/β vs. INFγ was correlated with elevated preoperative serum HGF levels (P<0.001). Although there was no significant difference in tumor diameter, invasion depth or lymphatic vessel invasion (ly), preoperative serum HGF levels increased as the disease progressed. In patients with peritoneal dissemination, serum HGF levels were frequently increased. Of the 50 cases analyzed, 36 (72%) were HGF-positive and 14 (28%) were HGF-negative, whereas 25 (50%) were c-Met-positive and 25 (50%) were c-Met-negative. No correlation was found between serum HGF levels in either staining. There was no correlation between the pathological factors analyzed and HGF levels, whereas a significant correlation was found between c-Met, which is a receptor of HGF, and lymphatic vessel invasion (ly0.1 vs. 2.3; P=0.0416), lymph node metastasis (n0.1 vs. 2; P=0.0184) and maximum tumor diameter (≤50 mm vs. >50 mm; P=0.0469) (Table II). The overall survival (OS) was significantly lower in c-Met-positive cases than that in c-Met-negative cases (P=0.0342; Fig. 2 and Table III).
Figure 2

c-Met immunostaining and OS of subjects. OS of c-Met immunopositive cases (n=25) was significantly lower than that of c-Met immunonegative cases (n=25); log-rank test, P=0.0342. (A) Negative c-Met immunostaining. (B) Positive c-Met immunostaining. OS, overall survival.

Table III

Five-year survival rate and P-value for overall survival.

Clinicopathological factornFive-year survival rateP-value
Peritoneal dissemination
 p0470.893<0.0001 (p0 vs. 1)
 p130.000
Stage
 I/II410.975<0.0001 (I/II vs. III/IV)
 III/IV90.222
Tumor size (mm)
 <50380.9200.0001 (<50 vs. >50)
 >50120.583
Venous invasion
 v0430.9060.0011 (v0 vs. 1/2)
 v1/270.429
Lymphatic invasion
 ly0/1430.9060.0017 (ly0/1 vs. 2/3)
 ly2/370.429
Lymph node metastasis
 n0/1450.8880.0056 (n0/1 vs. 2)
 n250.400
Infiltrative growth pattern
 IFNα/β320.9370.0083 (IFNα/β vs. γ)
 IFNγ170.647
c-Met expression
 (−)250.9200.0342 [(−) vs. (+)]
 (+)250.758
serum HGF (pg/ml)
 <400360.8870.0558 (<400 vs. >400)
 >400140.714
Histological type
 well/mod230.9200.1793 (well/mod vs. por/sig)
 poor/sig250.756
Depth
 m130.9170.2649 (m vs. sm/mp/ss/se)
 sm/mp/ss/se370.811
HGF expression
 (−)140.9290.5385 [(−) vs. (+)]
 (+)360.806

HGF, hepatocyte growth factor; m, mucosa; sm, submucosa; mp, muscularis propria; ss, subserosa; s, serosa; INF, infiltrative growth pattern; INFα, expansive type (tumor margin is clear); INFβ, intermediate type; INFγ, invasive type (tumor margin is unclear); well, well-differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma; mod, moderately differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma; poor, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; sig, signet-ring cell carcinoma; muc, mucinous adenocarcinoma; pap, papillary adenocarcinoma.

Discussion

Cell growth factors, including HGF, constitute a significant group of molecules that regulate cell proliferation, migration and apoptosis in the dynamic organization of cell populations during embryogenesis, organogenesis and regeneration. Numerous factors amongst these additionally promote cell migration. It has been previously reported that HGF has the most potent effect on the promotion of cancer cell infiltration, the cell migration associated with the degradation of extracellular matrix components, including the basement membrane and collagen (9–16). Therefore, activation of the HGF/c-Met pathway results in the simultaneous activation of multiple signal transduction pathways that promote cancer cell infiltration. Antagonists of the HGF/c-Met pathway represent potential anti-cancer agents to inhibit cancer infiltration and metastasis, and therefore, the development of such antagonists is currently underway (27). In the present study, serological and immunohistological analyses of the expression of the HGF/c-Met pathway in gastric cancer were performed in order to establish its clinical significance in the assessment of disease progression. To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies analyzing serum HGF levels and immunostaining for HGF and c-Met simultaneously with pathological factors were available in the literature. Although elevated serum HGF levels in patients with gastric cancer had been previously reported (32–35), the present study aimed to determine whether this factor may be used in the assessment of disease progression. The results indicated that pre-operative serum HGF levels were significantly higher in patients with gastric cancer than those in the control group (P<0.0001), and that high HGF levels above the cut-off value (297.3 pg/ml; mean in the control+2 SD) were observed in 93.75% of patients, similar to that reported previously. However, the correlation between HGF levels and disease stage previously reported by Wu et al (32) and Han et al (33) was not observed in the present study, the results of which were similar to those reported by Taniguchi et al (34). Conversely, advanced progression in the infiltrating growth pattern (INFα/β vs. INFγ) was significantly correlated with high preoperative serum HGF levels (P<0.001). Although this effect may be associated with the involvement of HGF in the infiltrating growth of cancer cells, this factor could not be evaluated because, to the best of our knowledge, no other study on infiltrating growth patterns was available in the literature. HGF levels were not significantly correlated with certain parameters, including tumor diameter, invasion depth and ly factors; however, preoperative serum HGF levels were elevated as the disease progressed. Regarding the association between HGF levels and invasion depth (pT factor), Niki et al (35) identified a significant difference between pT1 and pT2–4 tumors. Although a significant difference in HGF levels was not detected in patients with peritoneal dissemination, there was a tendency towards high HGF levels among these patients. Subjects for the present study were selected randomly; therefore no patient with liver metastasis was included. Niki et al (35) reported a significant elevation in serum HGF levels in patients diagnosed with liver metastasis, whereas Taniguchi et al (34) reported that there was no significant difference in serum HGF levels in patients with relapse independent of liver metastasis. Therefore, the preoperative serum HGF levels in patients with gastric cancer represent a potential predictive factor for disease progression, as observed in colon cancer (6). In the present study, no correlation was identified between serum HGF levels and immunostaining for HGF or c-Met in tissue preparations; this was potentially due to the complex paracrine and autocrine mechanisms of HGF in cancer cells (36,37). Therefore, the significance of HGF expression in the microenvironment surrounding tumors requires further investigation. Although there was no correlation between pathological factors and immunostaining for HGF, a significant correlation was identified between c-Met, which is a receptor of HGF, and lymphatic vessel invasion (ly0.1 vs. 2.3, P=0.0416), lymph node metastasis (n0.1 vs. 2, P=0.0184) and maximum tumor diameter (<50 mm vs. >50 mm, P=0.0469). Correlations between immunostaining for c-Met and various pathological factors, particularly invasion depth and disease stage, have been reported in previous studies (38–46). In the present study, cases were selected randomly for immunostaining analysis, as for serological analysis. It was demonstrated that 41 (82%) of the 50 cases analyzed were stage I or II, and 28 (56%) had an invasion depth of m or sm, indicating that the majority of the cohort comprised relatively early stage cancer cases. Only three (6%) cases that were Peritoneum dissemination-factor-positive were stage IV. These results likely explain the absence of statistically significant differences between immunostaining and invasion depth or disease stage. However, in the present study, which included numerous relatively early cancer cases, the OS of c-Met immunostaining-positive cases was significantly lower than that of negative cases (P=0.0342), indicating that c-Met positivity may be a prognostic factor for gastric cancer. In chemotherapy for unresectable recurrent gastric cancer, the efficacy of trastuzumab was demonstrated in HER2-positive cases, which subsequently led to the use of personalized drug treatments with molecularly targeted drugs (47). Rilotumumab, which is a fully human monoclonal antibody against HGF and a ligand of the c-Met receptor, suppresses c-Met downstream signaling (47). In pre-clinical models, rilotumumab was shown to inhibit tumor progression in a HGF/c-Met- dependent manner, and its tolerability was verified in early clinical trials (48,49). If future phase II/III trials are implemented under clinical trial designs that allow sufficient verification of the potential of c-Met expression as a biomarker to aid the identification of cases in which rilotumumab is effective, a field of c-Met-positive gastric cancer may be established, similarly to that of HER2-positive gastric cancer. Therefore, further basic studies regarding c-Met expression are required, particularly to improve quality control in immunostaining. In conclusion, the results of the present study revealed that elevated pre-operative serum HGF levels were indicative of invasive growth of tumor foci, categorized as IFNγ, and characterized by high-grade tumors with an unclear border between the tumor and the surrounding tissue. c-Met-positive immunostaining indicated a tumor with a large diameter, advanced lymphatic vessel invasion and a high degree of lymph node metastasis, and may therefore be a factor indicating poor prognosis. Based on the results described above, the expression of the HGF/c-Met pathway in gastric cancer is a potential predictive factor for disease progression, as previously established for colon cancer.
  41 in total

1.  Two North American families with hereditary papillary renal carcinoma and identical novel mutations in the MET proto-oncogene.

Authors:  L Schmidt; K Junker; G Weirich; G Glenn; P Choyke; I Lubensky; Z Zhuang; M Jeffers; G Vande Woude; H Neumann; M Walther; W M Linehan; B Zbar
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1998-04-15       Impact factor: 12.701

2.  Germline and somatic mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of the MET proto-oncogene in papillary renal carcinomas.

Authors:  L Schmidt; F M Duh; F Chen; T Kishida; G Glenn; P Choyke; S W Scherer; Z Zhuang; I Lubensky; M Dean; R Allikmets; A Chidambaram; U R Bergerheim; J T Feltis; C Casadevall; A Zamarron; M Bernues; S Richard; C J Lips; M M Walther; L C Tsui; L Geil; M L Orcutt; T Stackhouse; J Lipan; L Slife; H Brauch; J Decker; G Niehans; M D Hughson; H Moch; S Storkel; M I Lerman; W M Linehan; B Zbar
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 38.330

3.  Tumor-stromal cell interaction under hypoxia increases the invasiveness of pancreatic cancer cells through the hepatocyte growth factor/c-Met pathway.

Authors:  Takao Ide; Yoshihiko Kitajima; Atsushi Miyoshi; Takao Ohtsuka; Mayumi Mitsuno; Kazuma Ohtaka; Yasuo Koga; Kohji Miyazaki
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2006-12-15       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  Modulation of E-cadherin by hepatocyte growth factor induces aggressiveness of gastric carcinoma.

Authors:  Sang-Uk Han; Hwa-Young Lee; Jae-Ho Lee; Wook-Hwan Kim; Hyunja Nam; Hong Kim; Yong-Kwan Cho; Myung-Wook Kim; Kuhn Uk Lee
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  RON (MST1R) is a novel prognostic marker and therapeutic target for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Daniel V T Catenacci; Gustavo Cervantes; Soheil Yala; Erik A Nelson; Essam El-Hashani; Rajani Kanteti; Mohamed El Dinali; Rifat Hasina; Johannes Brägelmann; Tanguy Seiwert; Michele Sanicola; Les Henderson; Tatyana A Grushko; Olufunmilayo Olopade; Theodore Karrison; Yung-Jue Bang; Woo Ho Kim; Maria Tretiakova; Everett Vokes; David A Frank; Hedy L Kindler; Heather Huet; Ravi Salgia
Journal:  Cancer Biol Ther       Date:  2011-07-01       Impact factor: 4.742

6.  The overexpression of c-met as a prognostic indicator for gastric carcinoma compared to p53 and p21 nuclear accumulation.

Authors:  Uta Drebber; Stephan E Baldus; Britt Nolden; Guido Grass; Elfriede Bollschweiler; Hans P Dienes; Arnulf H Hölscher; Stefan P Mönig
Journal:  Oncol Rep       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.906

7.  Somatic mutations in the kinase domain of the Met/hepatocyte growth factor receptor gene in childhood hepatocellular carcinomas.

Authors:  W S Park; S M Dong; S Y Kim; E Y Na; M S Shin; J H Pi; B J Kim; J H Bae; Y K Hong; K S Lee; S H Lee; N J Yoo; J J Jang; S Pack; Z Zhuang; L Schmidt; B Zbar; J Y Lee
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1999-01-15       Impact factor: 12.701

8.  Sema4D induces angiogenesis through Met recruitment by Plexin B1.

Authors:  Paolo Conrotto; Donatella Valdembri; Simona Corso; Guido Serini; Luca Tamagnone; Paolo Maria Comoglio; Federico Bussolino; Silvia Giordano
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2005-01-04       Impact factor: 22.113

Review 9.  Hepatocyte growth factor, its receptor, and their potential value in cancer therapies.

Authors:  Wen G Jiang; Tracey A Martin; Christian Parr; Gaynor Davies; Kunio Matsumoto; Toshikazu Nakamura
Journal:  Crit Rev Oncol Hematol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 6.312

10.  Scatter factor and hepatocyte growth factor are indistinguishable ligands for the MET receptor.

Authors:  L Naldini; K M Weidner; E Vigna; G Gaudino; A Bardelli; C Ponzetto; R P Narsimhan; G Hartmann; R Zarnegar; G K Michalopoulos
Journal:  EMBO J       Date:  1991-10       Impact factor: 11.598

View more
  18 in total

1.  Clinical significance of various growth factors in patients with different gastric neoplasms.

Authors:  Lidia Kędzierska; Anna Madej-Michniewicz; Natalia Marczuk; Barbara Dołęgowska; Teresa Starzyńska; Wojciech Błogowski
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2020-01-15       Impact factor: 4.060

2.  Expression of c-Met and hepatocyte growth factor in various gastric pathologies and its association with Helicobacter pylori infection.

Authors:  Chuan Xie; Zhen Yang; Yi Hu; Ximei Cao; Jiang Chen; Yin Zhu; Nonghua Lu
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 2.967

3.  Identifying the Appropriate FISH Criteria for Defining MET Copy Number-Driven Lung Adenocarcinoma through Oncogene Overlap Analysis.

Authors:  Sinéad A Noonan; Lynne Berry; Xian Lu; Dexiang Gao; Anna E Barón; Patrick Chesnut; Jamie Sheren; Dara L Aisner; Dan Merrick; Robert C Doebele; Marileila Varella-Garcia; D Ross Camidge
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 15.609

4.  Effect of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with or without onartuzumab in epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative, mesenchymal-epithelial transition-positive gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: is it a real failure?

Authors:  Jimmy T Efird; Charulata Jindal; Timothy Fitzgerald; Tithi Biswas
Journal:  Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-09-07

5.  A plasma cytokine and angiogenic factor (CAF) analysis for selection of bevacizumab therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Long Bai; Feng Wang; Dong-Sheng Zhang; Cong Li; Ying Jin; De-Shen Wang; Dong-Liang Chen; Miao-Zhen Qiu; Hui-Yan Luo; Zhi-Qiang Wang; Yu-Hong Li; Feng-Hua Wang; Rui-Hua Xu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-12-01       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Upfront molecular testing in patients with advanced gastro-esophageal cancer: Is it time yet?

Authors:  Sameh Mikhail; Kristen Ciombor; Anne Noonan; Christina Wu; Richard Goldberg; Weiqiang Zhao; Lai Wei; Kristina Mathey; Melissa Yereb; Cynthia Timmers; Tanios Bekaii-Saab
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2015-09-08

Review 7.  Hepatocyte growth factor/MET in cancer progression and biomarker discovery.

Authors:  Kunio Matsumoto; Masataka Umitsu; Dinuka M De Silva; Arpita Roy; Donald P Bottaro
Journal:  Cancer Sci       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 6.716

8.  MET overexpression, gene amplification and relevant clinicopathological features in gastric adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Jing Zhang; Lei Guo; Xiuyun Liu; Wenbin Li; Jianming Ying
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-02-07

9.  Clinical impact of high serum hepatocyte growth factor in advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Takahiro Tsuji; Yuichi Sakamori; Hiroaki Ozasa; Yoshitaka Yagi; Hitomi Ajimizu; Yuto Yasuda; Tomoko Funazo; Takashi Nomizo; Hironori Yoshida; Hiroki Nagai; Ken Maeno; Tetsuya Oguri; Toyohiro Hirai; Young Hak Kim
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-05-16

10.  PKG II reverses HGF-triggered cellular activities by phosphorylating serine 985 of c-Met in gastric cancer cells.

Authors:  Yan Wu; Xiaoyuan Yao; Miaolin Zhu; Hai Qian; Lu Jiang; Ting Lan; Min Wu; Ji Pang; Yongchang Chen
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-06-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.