Chaoyang Zhu1, Jinxing Wei1, Xin Tian2, Yang Li2, Xiaodong Li2. 1. Department of Urinary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University Zhengzhou 450000, P. R. China. 2. Department of Urinary Surgery, Huaihe Hospital, Henan University Kaifeng 475000, P. R. China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore association of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR-γ) and phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) expressions with prognosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Our study subjects included 87 RCC tissues, 28 paracarcinoma tissues and 21 normal renal tissues. PPAR-γ and PTEN detection was conducted using immunohistochemistry staining. The association of PPAR-γ and PTEN with the clinical parameters and prognosis of RCC was analyzed. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox's proportional hazards regression model were used for exploring the relation between variables and prognosis. RESULTS: Among normal renal tissues, para-carcinoma tissues and renal cell carcinomas, positive PPAR-γ expression presented with a progressive tendency (P < 0.001), while positive PTEN expression a degressive tendency (P < 0.001). PPAR-γ expressions were closely related to tumor size, clinical stage and lymph node metastases (all P < 0.05). PTEN expressions were in close association with tumor size, Fuhrman grading, lymph node metastases (all P < 0.05). PPAR-γ expressions were in a negative relation with PTEN expressions (r = -0.417, P < 0.001). Negative PPAR-γ expressions confer a significantly higher overall survival rate than positive PPAR-γ expressions (P = 0.015), while negative PTEN expressions confer a significantly lower overall survival rate than positive PTEN expressions (P = 0.003). Clinical staging, Fuhrman grading, lymph node metastases, PPAR-γ and PTEN were independent prognostic factors for prognosis (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: PPAR-γ and PTEN expressions are related to the clinical parameters and prognosis of RCC and may be a biomarker for prognosis of RCC.
OBJECTIVE: To explore association of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR-γ) and phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) expressions with prognosis of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS: Our study subjects included 87 RCC tissues, 28 paracarcinoma tissues and 21 normal renal tissues. PPAR-γ and PTEN detection was conducted using immunohistochemistry staining. The association of PPAR-γ and PTEN with the clinical parameters and prognosis of RCC was analyzed. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox's proportional hazards regression model were used for exploring the relation between variables and prognosis. RESULTS: Among normal renal tissues, para-carcinoma tissues and renal cell carcinomas, positive PPAR-γ expression presented with a progressive tendency (P < 0.001), while positive PTEN expression a degressive tendency (P < 0.001). PPAR-γ expressions were closely related to tumor size, clinical stage and lymph node metastases (all P < 0.05). PTEN expressions were in close association with tumor size, Fuhrman grading, lymph node metastases (all P < 0.05). PPAR-γ expressions were in a negative relation with PTEN expressions (r = -0.417, P < 0.001). Negative PPAR-γ expressions confer a significantly higher overall survival rate than positive PPAR-γ expressions (P = 0.015), while negative PTEN expressions confer a significantly lower overall survival rate than positive PTEN expressions (P = 0.003). Clinical staging, Fuhrman grading, lymph node metastases, PPAR-γ and PTEN were independent prognostic factors for prognosis (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: PPAR-γ and PTEN expressions are related to the clinical parameters and prognosis of RCC and may be a biomarker for prognosis of RCC.
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Thomas E Hutson; Piotr Tomczak; M Dror Michaelson; Ronald M Bukowski; Olivier Rixe; Stéphane Oudard; Sylvie Negrier; Cezary Szczylik; Sindy T Kim; Isan Chen; Paul W Bycott; Charles M Baum; Robert A Figlin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Borje Ljungberg; Karim Bensalah; Steven Canfield; Saeed Dabestani; Fabian Hofmann; Milan Hora; Markus A Kuczyk; Thomas Lam; Lorenzo Marconi; Axel S Merseburger; Peter Mulders; Thomas Powles; Michael Staehler; Alessandro Volpe; Axel Bex Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ming-Yue Li; Huiling Yuan; Lily T Ma; Angel W Y Kong; Michael K Y Hsin; Johnson H Y Yip; Malcolm J Underwood; George G Chen Journal: Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 6.914
Authors: Farzad S Forootan; Shiva S Forootan; Mohammed I Malki; Danqing Chen; Gandi Li; Ke Lin; Philip S Rudland; Christopher S Foster; Youqiang Ke Journal: Int J Oncol Date: 2013-11-05 Impact factor: 5.650