| Literature DB >> 25592281 |
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
Clinicopathological factors and serum HGF.
| Factor | n | Serum HGF (pg/ml) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gastric cancer | 110 | 391.02±68.44 | <0.0001 |
| Control | 200 | 193.30±52.00 | |
| Stage | |||
| IA | 55 | 381.21±65.92 | NS |
| IB | 18 | 414.41±82.48 | |
| II | 16 | 378.28±47.01 | |
| IIIA | 9 | 404.64±65.95 | |
| IIIB | 6 | 402.38±93.44 | |
| IV | 6 | 412.94±71.45 | |
| Depth | |||
| m | 28 | 378.89±58.81 | NS |
| sm | 31 | 384.87±69.89 | |
| mp | 11 | 386.97±98.72 | |
| ss | 18 | 403.36±54.88 | |
| s | 22 | 407.04±71.75 | |
| INF | |||
| α | 22 | 369.65±68.93 | <0.001 (α.β vs. γ) |
| β | 37 | 367.34±59.68 | |
| γ | 44 | 418.42±67.72 | |
| Histological type | |||
| well | 25 | 387.23±54.56 | NS |
| mod | 26 | 379.56±80.35 | |
| poor | 45 | 399.25±70.48 | |
| sig | 6 | 404.95±74.10 | |
| muc | 3 | 361.36±77.65 | |
| pap | 4 | 396.12±54.23 | |
| Macroscopic type | |||
| 0 | 59 | 382.03±64.39 | NS |
| 0-advanced | 9 | 364.13±68.61 | |
| 1 | 4 | 426.32±66.53 | |
| 2 | 16 | 404.70±87.33 | |
| 3 | 10 | 402.00±43.63 | |
| 4 | 11 | 423.53±72.43 | |
| 5 | 1 | 335.54±0.000 | |
| Lymphatic invasion | |||
| ly0 | 48 | 384.71±63.69 | NS |
| ly1 | 37 | 391.22±70.67 | |
| ly2 | 21 | 398.01±76.63 | |
| ly3 | 4 | 428.13±68.74 | |
| Venous invasion | |||
| v0 | 89 | 387.92±67.32 | NS |
| v1 | 20 | 404.99±75.03 | |
| v2 | 1 | 387.52±0.000 | |
| Lymph node metastasis | |||
| n0 | 78 | 391.17±70.37 | NS |
| n1 | 17 | 382.79±58.94 | |
| n2 | 13 | 394.60±68.08 | |
| n3 | 0 | ||
| n4 | 2 | 431.73±116.00 | NS |
| Peritoneal dissemination | |||
| p0 | 105 | 389.37±68.19 | NS |
| p1 | 5 | 425.58±71.99 | |
| Tumor size, mm | |||
| ≤–70 | 97 | 384.64±66.22 | NS |
| >70 | 10 | 428.09±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.
Correlation between HGF/c-Met overexpression and clinicopathological factors.
| HGF expression | c-Met expression | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||
| Factor | n | subtotal | (−) | (+) | P-value | (−) | (+) | P-value |
| All | 50 | 14 | 36 | 25 | 25 | |||
| Gender | ||||||||
| Male | 38 | |||||||
| Female | 12 | |||||||
| Stage | ||||||||
| IA | 25 | 41 | 12 | 29 | NS | 23 | 18 | NS |
| IB | 7 | |||||||
| II | 9 | |||||||
| IIIA | 4 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 7 | ||
| IIIB | 2 | |||||||
| IV | 3 | |||||||
| Depth | ||||||||
| m | 13 | 13 | 5 | 8 | NS | 9 | 4 | NS |
| sm | 15 | 37 | 9 | 28 | 16 | 21 | ||
| mp | 5 | |||||||
| ss | 8 | |||||||
| se | 9 | |||||||
| INF | ||||||||
| α | 10 | 32 | 10 | 22 | NS | 16 | 16 | NS |
| β | 22 | |||||||
| γ | 17 | 17 | 3 | 14 | 8 | 9 | ||
| Histological type | ||||||||
| well | 12 | 23 | 5 | 18 | NS | 11 | 12 | NS |
| mod | 11 | |||||||
| poor | 20 | 25 | 8 | 17 | 13 | 12 | ||
| sig | 5 | |||||||
| muc | 1 | |||||||
| pap | 1 | |||||||
| Lymphatic invasion | ||||||||
| ly0 | 27 | 43 | 12 | 31 | NS | 24 | 19 | 0.0416 |
| ly1 | 16 | |||||||
| ly2 | 4 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 6 | ||
| ly3 | 3 | |||||||
| Venous invasion | ||||||||
| v0 | 43 | 43 | 11 | 32 | NS | 23 | 20 | NS |
| v1 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | ||
| v2 | 0 | |||||||
| Lymph node metastasis | ||||||||
| n0 | 34 | 45 | 12 | 33 | NS | 25 | 20 | 0.0184 |
| n1 | 11 | |||||||
| n2 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 5 | ||
| n3 | 0 | |||||||
| n4 | 0 | |||||||
| Peritoneal dissemination | ||||||||
| p0 | 47 | 47 | 14 | 33 | NS | 24 | 23 | NS |
| p1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | NS | 1 | 2 | NS |
| Tumor size (mm) | ||||||||
| ≤50 | 38 | 38 | 12 | 26 | NS | 22 | 16 | 0.0469 |
| >50 | 12 | 12 | 2 | 10 | 3 | 9 | ||
| Serum HGF (pg/ml) | ||||||||
| ≤400 | 36 | 36 | 10 | 26 | NS | 17 | 19 | NS |
| >400 | 14 | 14 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 6 | ||
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.
Figure 1Immunostaining 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.
Figure 2c-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.
Five-year survival rate and P-value for overall survival.
| Clinicopathological factor | n | Five-year survival rate | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peritoneal dissemination | |||
| p0 | 47 | 0.893 | <0.0001 (p0 vs. 1) |
| p1 | 3 | 0.000 | |
| Stage | |||
| I/II | 41 | 0.975 | <0.0001 (I/II vs. III/IV) |
| III/IV | 9 | 0.222 | |
| Tumor size (mm) | |||
| <50 | 38 | 0.920 | 0.0001 (<50 vs. >50) |
| >50 | 12 | 0.583 | |
| Venous invasion | |||
| v0 | 43 | 0.906 | 0.0011 (v0 vs. 1/2) |
| v1/2 | 7 | 0.429 | |
| Lymphatic invasion | |||
| ly0/1 | 43 | 0.906 | 0.0017 (ly0/1 vs. 2/3) |
| ly2/3 | 7 | 0.429 | |
| Lymph node metastasis | |||
| n0/1 | 45 | 0.888 | 0.0056 (n0/1 vs. 2) |
| n2 | 5 | 0.400 | |
| Infiltrative growth pattern | |||
| IFNα/β | 32 | 0.937 | 0.0083 (IFNα/β vs. γ) |
| IFNγ | 17 | 0.647 | |
| c-Met expression | |||
| (−) | 25 | 0.920 | 0.0342 [(−) vs. (+)] |
| (+) | 25 | 0.758 | |
| serum HGF (pg/ml) | |||
| <400 | 36 | 0.887 | 0.0558 (<400 vs. >400) |
| >400 | 14 | 0.714 | |
| Histological type | |||
| well/mod | 23 | 0.920 | 0.1793 (well/mod vs. por/sig) |
| poor/sig | 25 | 0.756 | |
| Depth | |||
| m | 13 | 0.917 | 0.2649 (m vs. sm/mp/ss/se) |
| sm/mp/ss/se | 37 | 0.811 | |
| HGF expression | |||
| (−) | 14 | 0.929 | 0.5385 [(−) vs. (+)] |
| (+) | 36 | 0.806 | |
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.