| Literature DB >> 26870350 |
Xiufang Li1, Ruixia Huang2, Ruth Holm Li3, Claes G Trope4, Jahn M Nesland2, Zhenhe Suo5.
Abstract
A growing body of evidence indicates that aberrant activation of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) plays a key role in tumor cell invasion and metastasis. Zinc finger E-box-binding homeobox factor 1 (ZEB1), as a crucial mediator of EMT, contributes to the malignant progression of various epithelial tumors. To determine whether ZEB1 is involved in the progression of ovarian cancer, we immunohistochemically evaluated the expression of ZEB1 in 238 cases of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) and analyzed its associations with clinicopathological parameters. Positive expression of ZEB1 was observed in 32.8% (78/238) of EOCs and it was found to be significantly associated with advanced tumor stage (P=0.001). The survival analysis indicated that the expression of ZEB1 was associated with a poor 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) (P=0.021). A similar tendency was also observed between the expression of ZEB1 and 5-year overall survival, although it did not reach statistical significance (P=0.118). Moreover, the multivariate analysis demonstrated that ZEB1 expression was an independent risk factor for 5-year PFS in ovarian cancer. Taken together, our data provide evidence that ZEB1 may play a crucial role in promoting aggressive ovarian carcinoma progression. Therefore, ZEB1 may serve as an effectively predictive marker and a potential target for therapeutic intervention in EOC.Entities:
Keywords: epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition; ovarian cancer; survival; zinc finger E-box-binding homeobox 1
Year: 2015 PMID: 26870350 PMCID: PMC4727064 DOI: 10.3892/mco.2015.662
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Clin Oncol ISSN: 2049-9450
Figure 1.ZEB1 expression in ovarian carcinoma. (A) Poorly differentiated ovarian carcinoma exhibiting negative immunostaining for ZEB1, while most of the stromal cells surrounding the tumor cells exhibit strongly positive nuclear staining (magnification, ×200). (B) Another poorly differentiated ovarian carcinoma exhibiting positive nuclear immunostaining of both tumor and stromal cells (magnification, ×200). (C) The stromal cells in a well-differentiated ovarian carcinoma were all strongly positive, while the tumor cells were negative for ZEB1 (magnification, ×200). (D) Both the tumor and stromal cells in a well-differentiated ovarian carcinoma exhibited positive nuclear staining (magnification, ×200). ZEB1, zinc finger E-box-binding homeobox factor 1.
Association of ZEB1 expression in ovarian carcinoma with clinicopathological characteristics.
| ZEB1 expression in tumor cells by IHC | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | Total (n=238) | Negative, n (%) (n=160) | Positive, n (%) (n=78) | P-value |
| Age (years) | 0.423 | |||
| ≤39 | 16 | 9 (56.2) | 7 (43.8) | |
| 40–49 | 38 | 26 (68.4) | 12 (31.6) | |
| 50–59 | 61 | 40 (65.6) | 21 (34.4) | |
| 60–69 | 69 | 46 (66.7) | 23 (33.3) | |
| ≥70 | 39 | 28 (71.8) | 11 (28.2) | |
| Missing | 15 | |||
| Histological subtype | 0.278 | |||
| Serous carcinoma | 157 | 97 (61.8) | 60 (38.2) | |
| Mucinous carcinoma | 17 | 14 (82.4) | 3 (17.6) | |
| Endometrioid carcinoma | 19 | 16 (84.2) | 3 (15.8) | |
| Clear-cell carcinoma | 10 | 7 (70.0) | 3 (30.0) | |
| Mixed epithelial tumor | 11 | 9 (81.8) | 2 (18.2) | |
| Undifferentiated tumor | 5 | 3 (60.0) | 2 (40.0) | |
| Unclassified tumor and others | 19 | |||
| FIGO stage | 0.011 | |||
| I+II | 43 | 32 (74.4) | 11 (25.6) | |
| III | 113 | 81 (71.7) | 32 (28.3) | |
| IV | 76 | 41 (53.9) | 35 (46.1) | |
| Not staged or missing | 6 | |||
| Histological differentiation | 0.249 | |||
| High | 19 | 13 (68.4) | 6 (31.6) | |
| Moderate | 61 | 45 (73.8) | 16 (26.2) | |
| Poor | 126 | 79 (62.7) | 47 (37.3) | |
| Not graded or missing | 32 | |||
ZEB1, zinc finger E-box-binding homeobox factor 1; IHC, immunohistochemistry; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Figure 2.Survival probabiliy in different zinc finger E-box-binding homeobox factor 1 (ZEB1) expression groups. (A) The group with positive ZEB1 expression in ovarian carcinoma cells had a poorer 5-year progression-free survival compared with the negative group (P=0.021, Kaplan-Meier method). (B) The ZEB1-negative group exhibited a trend for better 5-year-overall survival compared with the positive group, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P=0.118, Kaplan-Meier method).
Multivariate analysis of 5-year progession-free survival in 238 confirmed ovarian carcinoma patients.
| Factors | HR | 95% CI | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| ZEB1 expression[ | 1.491 | 1.063–2.091 | 0.021 |
| Age[ | 1.104 | 0.961–1.269 | 0.163 |
| Differentiation[ | 1.379 | 1.052–1.808 | 0.020 |
| FIGO stage[ | 1.689 | 1.334–2.140 | <0.001 |
| Histological subtype[ | 0.905 | 0.811–1.267 | 0.905 |
Including negative and positive groups.
≤39 vs. 40–49 vs. 50–59 vs. 60–69 vs. ≥70 years.
High vs. moderate vs. poor differentiation.
Stage I vs. II vs. III vs. IV.
Serous vs. mucinous vs. endometrioid vs. clear-cell vs. mixed epithelial vs. undifferenciated. ZEB1, zinc finger E-box-binding homeobox factor 1; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.