| Literature DB >> 27092013 |
Lei Wang1, Yu Zhang1, Yu Gao1, Yang Fan1, Luyao Chen1, Kan Liu1, Qingyu Meng1, Chaofei Zhao1, Xin Ma1.
Abstract
Metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) presents a poor prognosis and an unpredictable course. To date, no validated biomarkers can predict the outcome of RCC. Ongoing efforts are conducted to identify the molecular markers of RCC progression, as well as the targets for novel therapeutic approaches. RET is a tyrosine kinase receptor which has been investigated as a possible target in other cancers because it is involved in oncogenic activation. To evaluate the predictive and prognostic functions of RET in ccRCC, a tissue microarray study was conducted on 273 ccRCC patients. Results showed that both RET cytoplasmic and nuclear expression were independently associated with PFS and OS, and the combined RET cytoplasmic and nuclear statuses demonstrated that the ratio of high nuclear RET and cytoplasmic RET was the strongest predictor of both PFS and OS. The high cytoplasmic RET expression retained its independent poor prognostic value in targeted drug treated patients. The RET nuclear expression was associated with distant metastasis. Moreover, the RET nuclear expression was an independent predictor of ccRCC postoperative metastasis. In conclusion, RET may be useful in prognostication and can be used at initial diagnosis to identify patients with high potential to develop metastasis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27092013 PMCID: PMC4820605 DOI: 10.1155/2016/6870470
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dis Markers ISSN: 0278-0240 Impact factor: 3.434
Figure 1Expression of nuclear and cytoplasmic RET. Shown are representative figures of low RET nuclear and cytoplasmic (panels (a)), high RET nuclear only (panels (b)), high RET cytoplasmic only (panels (c)), and high RET nuclear and cytoplasmic (panels (d)) expression in ccRCC.
Clinical characteristics of patients.
| Features | RET cytoplasm | RET nuclear | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low expression ( | High expression ( |
| Low expression ( | High expression ( |
| |
| Median age (years) | 56 (29–81, 46–63) | 52 (18–79, 45–62) | 54 (18–81, 45–63) | 56 (21–79, 47–65) | ||
|
| ||||||
| Gender (male) | 107 (79%) | 97 (71%) | 0.256 | 110 (76%) | 94 (73%) | 0.931 |
|
| ||||||
| Median PFS months | 26 (1.5–>102, 10.8–>55) | 12 (1–>93, 5.8–>36) | <0.001† | 26 (1.5–102, 9.3–>65) | 13.1 (1–>93, 6–>47) | 0.002† |
|
| ||||||
| Median OS months | >36 (2–>102, >25.1–>44.5) | 28 (1–>93, 13.1–>47) | <0.001† | 49 (2–102, 21.4–>65) | 31.5 (1–>93, 14.2–>52) | 0.007† |
|
| ||||||
| ECOG PS | ||||||
| 0 | 69 | 63 | 0.151 | 78 | 56 | 0.233 |
| ≥1 | 67 | 74 | 66 | 73 | ||
|
| ||||||
| T stage | ||||||
| 1-2 | 90 | 78 | 0.083 | 89 | 79 | 0.907 |
| 3-4 | 46 | 59 | 55 | 50 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Metastasis status | ||||||
| No | 59 | 56 | 0.100 | 68 | 47 | <0.001 |
| Yes | 77 | 81 | 76 | 82 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Fuhrman grade | ||||||
| 1-2 | 87 | 81 | 0.144 | 90 | 78 | 0.208 |
| 3-4 | 49 | 56 | 54 | 51 | ||
Data are median (range, IQR) or n (%). PFS and OS were deemed as continuous variable, and Spearman's Rho test was used to study the relationships between the covariates. †PFS and OS were deemed as dichotomized variable, and log-rank test was used to study the differences between the covariates.
Figure 2Association of RET subcellular expression with PFS and OS. (a) Patients with high RET cytoplasmic expression had significantly worse PFS; (b) patients with high RET cytoplasmic expression had significantly worse OS; (c) patients with high RET nuclear expression had significantly worse PFS; (d) patients with high RET nuclear expression had significantly worse OS; (e) patients with high RET nuclear and cytoplasmic expression had the worst PFS of all patients; (f) patients with high RET nuclear and cytoplasmic expression had the worst OS of all patients. Log-rank test was used to study the differences between the covariates.
Multivariable Cox regression analyses.
| Multivariable Cox regression | Association with PFS | Association with OS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| HR | 95% CI |
| HR | 95% CI | |
| (A) RET cytoplasmic continuous | ||||||
| Fuhrman grade | 0.003 | 1.408 | 1.120–1.770 | 0.039 | 1.292 | 1.014–1.646 |
| ECOG PS | <0.001 | 1.766 | 1.419–2.199 | <0.001 | 1.921 | 1.521–2.428 |
| T stage | 0.011 | 1.275 | 1.057–1.538 | 0.026 | 1.242 | 1.026–1.503 |
| Metastasis | <0.001 | 2.775 | 1.791–4.298 | <0.001 | 3.143 | 1.998–4.944 |
| Targeted treatment | 0.001 | 0.518 | 0.349–0.769 | <0.001 | 0.407 | 0.270–0.613 |
| RET continuous | <0.001 | 1.860 | 1.459–2.372 | <0.001 | 1.666 | 1.306–2.125 |
|
| ||||||
| (B) RET nuclear continuous | ||||||
| Fuhrman grade | 0.003 | 1.408 | 1.123–1.765 | 0.039 | 1.287 | 1.012–1.636 |
| ECOG PS | <0.001 | 1.842 | 1.470–2.308 | <0.001 | 1.999 | 1.573–2.541 |
| T stage | 0.024 | 1.244 | 1.029–1.503 | 0.043 | 1.220 | 1.006–1.480 |
| Metastasis | <0.001 | 2.671 | 1.697–4.203 | <0.001 | 3.097 | 1.930–4.970 |
| Targeted treatment | 0.002 | 0.526 | 0.351–0.790 | <0.001 | 0.419 | 0.275–0.639 |
| RET nuclear continuous | 0.004 | 1.379 | 1.109–1.716 | 0.047 | 1.260 | 1.003–1.584 |
|
| ||||||
| (C) RET cytoplasmic dichotomized | ||||||
| RET cytoplasmic (high versus low) | 0.001 | 1.683 | 1.235–2.293 | 0.003 | 1.635 | 1.185–2.255 |
|
| ||||||
| (D) RET nuclear dichotomised | ||||||
| RET nuclear (high versus low) | 0.020 | 1.428 | 1.058–1.927 | 0.307 | 1.180 | 0.859–1.623 |
|
| ||||||
| (E) Multivariable Cox regression (combined RET cytoplasmic and nuclear expression) | ||||||
| Low RET nuclear and cytoplasmic | reference | |||||
| High RET nuclear only | 0.028 | 1.713 | 1.059–2.772 | 0.083 | 1.568 | 0.943–2.608 |
| High RET cytoplasmic only | 0.220 | 1.366 | 0.830–2.248 | 0.136 | 1.507 | 0.879–2.582 |
| High RET nuclear and cytoplasmic | <0.001 | 2.466 | 1.639–3.711 | <0.001 | 2.294 | 1.499–3.510 |
Covariates are not showed for the omitted space; †comparisons of dichotomized variable.
HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status.
Figure 3Association of RET expression with metastasis and prognostic function of RET in targeted drug treated patients. (a) Expression of nuclear and cytoplasmic RET in no metastatic tumours and metastatic tumours; (b) expression of nuclear and cytoplasmic RET in no postoperative metastatic tumours and postoperative metastatic tumours; unpaired t-test was used to study the relationships between the covariates, p < 0.05, and p < 0.0001; (c) patients with high RET nuclear expression had significantly shorter MFS; (d) patients with high RET cytoplasmic expression had shorter median MFS, but p value was not significant; (e) patients with high RET cytoplasmic expression had significantly worse PFS; (f) patients with high RET cytoplasmic expression had significantly worse OS.