| Literature DB >> 27829864 |
Song Gao1, Yan Pan1, Libin Song1, Lei Dong2, Lao I Weng2, Peng Wang1, Yongqiang Hua1, Zhen Chen1, Luming Liu1.
Abstract
Qingyihuaji formula (QYHJ), confirmed efficacious in a series of clinical trials, has been applied to human pancreatic carcinoma treatment in Shanghai Cancer Center for years. Recent evidence highlighted that pluripotent stem cells transcription factor Nanog plays a pivotal role in carcinogenesis. However, there is little published information regarding the underlying clinical significance and mechanisms of transcription factor Nanog in pancreatic cancer. In this study, our results indicated that Nanog is overexpressed in human pancreatic cancer stem cells and downregulated by QYHJ, which may contribute to explain the clinical effectiveness of QYHJ and provide advanced pancreatic cancer patients with a new therapeutic option, supporting our hypothesis that the degradation pathway is another mechanism by which QYHJ affects Nanog expression.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27829864 PMCID: PMC5086502 DOI: 10.1155/2016/7028289
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Immunohistochemical analysis of Nanog in PDAC (pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma) tissues. In PDAC tissues, immunoreactivity for Nanog was observed in the nucleus or nucleoplasm of cancer cells (a–c), with no immunoreactivity in the surrounding stroma (d). The immunoreactivity was different in the respective cases: (a) strong; (b) moderate; (c) weak; and (d) absent expression (scale bar, 100 μm).
Figure 2Nanog is aberrantly overexpressed in plasma and tissues and associated prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer. ∗ indicates p value < 0.05.
Correlation of Nanog expression and clinicopathological characteristics in patients with pancreatic cancer.
| Parameters | Nanog IHC scores |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Mean | 57.5 | 58.1 | 56.9 | 51.2 | 53.3 | 0.133 |
|
| ||||||
| Male | 26 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | |
| Female | 21 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 0.491 |
|
| ||||||
| Confined | 26 | 5 | 12 | 7 | 2 | |
| Invasion of adjacent organ | 15 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Distal metastasis | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0.475 |
|
| ||||||
| ≤4 cm | 19 | 13 | 4 | 1 | 1 | |
| >4 cm | 28 | 12 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 0.041 |
|
| ||||||
| Head | 34 | 18 | 7 | 8 | 2 | |
| Body and tail | 13 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0.832 |
|
| ||||||
| I and II | 38 | 14 | 7 | 9 | 9 | |
| III and IV | 9 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||||
| Well and moderate | 35 | 12 | 5 | 11 | 7 | |
| Poor | 12 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0.012 |
|
| ||||||
| Yes | 24 | 8 | 9 | 4 | 3 | |
| No | 23 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 0.037 |
|
| ||||||
| ≤500 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | |
| >500 | 36 | 0.067 | ||||
All the other p values were calculated by Pearson Chi-square test. #: spearman rank correlation test. ∗ denotes statistical significance.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors influencing overall survival in 47 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma undergoing surgery.
| Parameter | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI |
| HR | 95% CI |
| |
|
| 1.1 | 0.5–2.4 | 0.53 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Male | ||||||
| Female | 0.79 | 0.4–1.3 | 0.176 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Confined | ||||||
| Invasion of adjacent organ | 3.3 | 1.65–7.21 | ||||
| Distal metastasis | 4.1 | 2.65–10.69 | 0.61 | |||
|
| ||||||
| ≤4 cm | ||||||
| >4 cm | 2.1 | 1.8–4.9 | 0.041 | 1.3 | 0.57–3.77 | 0.19 |
|
| ||||||
| Head | ||||||
| Body and tail | 0.455 | 0.17–1.10 | 0.057 | |||
|
| ||||||
| I and II | ||||||
| III and IV | 4.0 | 1.2–8.3 | <0.001 | 8.9 | 3.6–53.5 | 0.32 |
|
| ||||||
| Well and moderate | ||||||
| Poor | 8.5 | 4.3–76.9 | 0.55 | |||
|
| ||||||
| Yes | ||||||
| No | 5.8 | 1.5–14.9 | 0.0013 | 6.6 | 0.89–14.2 | 0.062 |
|
| ||||||
| Strong | ||||||
| Moderate | 1.55 | 0.55–4.11 | 1.56 | 0.60–4.11 | <0.001 | |
| Weak | 3.0 | 0.4–20.1 | 3.0 | 0.77–20.5 | 0.0013 | |
| Absent | 7.65 | 5.21–32.3 | <0.001 | 8.10 | 4.22–25.0 | <0.01 |
HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval. ∗ denotes statistical significance.
Figure 3QYHJ treatment can reduce the tumorigenicity of PCSCs in nude mice. ∗ indicates p value < 0.05 and ∗∗ indicates p value < 0.01.
Figure 4Immunohistochemistry analyses on expression of Nanog/Ki-67 after QYHJ and GEM treatment in pancreatic tumor tissues (scale bar, 100 μm).
Figure 5QYHJ treatment can effectively inhibit the in vitro proliferation, invasion, and cell cycle progression of pancreatic cancer stem cells. ∗∗ indicates p value < 0.01.