| Literature DB >> 26109910 |
Yongru Liu1, Fanghui Ren1, Minhua Rong2, Yihuan Luo1, Yiwu Dang1, Gang Chen1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although recent studies have shown the utility of miR-203 as a cancer-relevant biomarker, the validated clinical significance of miR-203 in HCC remains obscure. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the relationship between miR-203 expression and clinicopathological features in HCC patients.Entities:
Keywords: Adjacent non-cancerous liver; HCC; Metastasis; MiR-203; RT-qPCR
Year: 2015 PMID: 26109910 PMCID: PMC4479344 DOI: 10.1186/s12935-015-0214-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Cell Int ISSN: 1475-2867 Impact factor: 5.722
Relationship between miR-203 expression and clinicopathological features in HCC
| Clinicopathological Features |
| miRNA-203 relevant expression (2-ΔCq) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD |
|
| |||
| Tissue | Adjacent non-cancerous liver | 95 | 2.2408 ± 0.75351 | 10.170 | <0.001 |
| HCC | 95 | 1.1651 ± 0.70378 | |||
| Age | <50 | 49 | 1.0951 ± 0.72640 | 1.000 | 0.320 |
| ≥50 | 46 | 1.2396 ± 0.67884 | |||
| Gender | male | 75 | 1.1163 ± 0.70032 | −1.313 | 0.192 |
| female | 20 | 1.3480 ± 0.70405 | |||
| Differentiation | well | 6 | 1.1717 ± 0.53229 | 0.804 | 0.451 |
| moderate | 60 | 1.2305 ± 0.73598 | |||
| poor | 29 | 1.0283 ± 0.66507 | |||
| Size | <5 cm | 18 | 0.9061 ± 0.50149 | −2.208 | 0.034 |
| ≥5 cm | 77 | 1.2256 ± 0.73265 | |||
| Tumor nodes | single | 52 | 1.2960 ± 0.76903 | 2.026 | 0.046 |
| multiple | 43 | 1.0067 ± 0.58613 | |||
| Metastasis | - | 46 | 1.3363 ± 0.77316 | 2.353 | 0.021 |
| + | 49 | 1.0043 ± 0.59589 | |||
| Clinical TNM stage | I-II | 22 | 1.5600 ± 0.79292 | 3.141 | 0.002 |
| III-IV | 73 | 1.0460 ± 0.63345 | |||
| Portal vein tumor embolus | - | 63 | 1.2387 ± 0.76142 | 1.440 | 0.153 |
| + | 32 | 1.0200 ± 0.55646 | |||
| Vaso-invasion | - | 59 | 1.1810 ± 0.76883 | 0.282 | 0.779 |
| + | 36 | 1.1389 ± 0.59126 | |||
| Tumor capsular infiltration | With complete capsule | 45 | 1.1549 ± 0.75314 | −0.133 | 0.895 |
| Infiltration or no capsule | 50 | 1.1742 ± 0.66383 | |||
| HCV | - | 63 | 1.1073 ± 0.71115 | −1.124 | 0.264 |
| + | 32 | 1.2788 ± 0.68580 | |||
| HBV | - | 17 | 1.2624 ± 0.51125 | 0.627 | 0.532 |
| + | 78 | 1.1438 ± 0.74014 | |||
| AFP | - | 41 | 1.1173 ± 0.69725 | −0.629 | 0.531 |
| + | 38 | 1.2184 ± 0.73104 | |||
| Cirrhosis | - | 50 | 1.4912 ± 0.72123 | 5.436 | 0.000 |
| + | 45 | 0.8027 ± 0.47296 | |||
| MTDH | - | 38 | 1.1561 ± 0.69533 | 0.162 | 0.872 |
| + | 51 | 1.1320 ± 0.69657 | |||
| nm23 | - | 20 | 1.5965 ± 0.82139 | 3.237 | 0.002 |
| + | 75 | 1.0500 ± 0.62628 | |||
| p53 | - | 40 | 1.1412 ± 0.69109 | −0.280 | 0.780 |
| + | 55 | 1.1824 ± .71871 | |||
| p21 | - | 62 | 1.2758 ± 0.72648 | 2.142 | 0.035 |
| + | 33 | 0.9570 ± 0.61683 | |||
| VEGF | - | 25 | 1.4252 ± 0.82009 | 2.196 | 0.031 |
| + | 70 | 1.0721 ± 0.63841 | |||
| Ki-67 LI | Low | 47 | 1.1726 ± 0.76271 | 0.102 | 0.919 |
| High | 48 | 1.1577 ± 0.64897 | |||
| MVD | Low | 47 | 1.1900 ± 0.69824 | 0.340 | 0.734 |
| High | 48 | 1.1406 ± 0.71570 | |||
N number, SD standard deviation, TNM tumor node metastasis, HBV hepatitis B virus, HCV hepatitis C virus, AFP alpha fetal protein, MTDH metadherin, VEGF vascular endothelial growth factor, LI labeling index, MVD microvessel density
aANOVA test was performed
Fig. 1Expression of miR-203 in adjacent non-cancerous liver and HCC tissues. Quantitative real-time PCR was performed to detect the expression of miR-203. a: Relative expression of miR-203 in adjacent non-cancerous liver and HCC tissues (dot plots with lines linking each pairs). b: The difference of relevant miR-203 expression between adjacent non-cancerous liver and HCC tissues. *** P < 0.001. c: ROC curve of miR-203 expression to distinguish HCC from non-cancerous liver. The area under curve (AUC) of miR-203 was 0.85 (95 % CI: 0.796 ~ 0.904, P = 0.027) at a cut-off value of 1.99. Error bars represented standard deviation (SD). The statistical analysis was performed with Student’s t-test (a and b)
Fig. 2The relationship between miR-203 expression and clinicopathological parameters of HCC. a: Tumor size, (b): Tumor nodes, (c): metastasis status, (d): clinical TNM stage, (e): cirrhosis, (f): nm23, (g): p21, (h): VEGF. The data were representative of two independent experiments. Error bars represented SD. * P <0.05, ** P <0.01, *** P <0.001 by Student’s t-test (a-g)
Fig. 3Diagnostic significance of different parameters on HCC. a. The ROC curve of miR-203 for discriminating metastasis from non-metastasis in HCC patients. The AUC of miR-203 and metastasis was 0.647 (95 % CI: 0.536 ~ 0.757, P = 0.014) at a cut off value of 1.52. b. ROC curve of miR-203 expression to distinguish advanced clinical TNM stage from early TNM stage in patients with HCC. The AUC of miR-203 and TNM was 0.705 (95 % CI: 0.575 ~ 0.834, P = 0.004) at a cut-off value of 1.57. The cut off values were measured according to the median expression of miR-203 in HCC tissues. Error bars represented SD. Significance of difference between two groups was analyzed by Student’s t test (a and b)
Fig. 4Recurrence free survival of HCC patients according to miR-203 levels. There was no significant association between miR-203 expression and recurrence free survival in patients with HCC (P = 0.650). Error bars represented SD. Survival difference according to miR-203 expression was analyzed by the log-rank test