| Literature DB >> 27843945 |
Jinxiao Liang1, Hui Zhou2, Yongpai Peng2, Xiaofei Xie2, Ruixin Li2, Yunyun Liu2, Qingsheng Xie1, Zhongqiu Lin2.
Abstract
Aberrant activation of the canonical Wnt pathway plays a significant role in cervical cancer (CC). However, limited data show the correlation between the cancer clinicopathological characteristics and the key molecules such as β-catenin and Wnt inhibitory factor 1 (WIF1). In this study, β-catenin and WIF1 expression were analyzed by immunohistochemistry for 196 patients with CC, 39 with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), and 41 with normal cervical epithelium (NCE). Significant overexpression of β-catenin was detected in CC (67.9%) when compared to CIN (43.6%) or NCE (34.1%), p < 0.01, while low WIF1 expression was detected in CC (24.0%) when compared to CIN (59.0%) or NCE (58.5%), p < 0.001. Negative correlation was shown between β-catenin and WIF1 expression (r = -0.637, p < 0.001). In addition, multivariate analysis revealed that both lymph node metastasis and β-catenin expression were the independent prognostic factors not only for disease-free survival (HR = 5.029, p < 0.001; HR = 2.588, p = 0.035, resp.), but also for overall survival (HR = 5.058, p < 0.001; HR = 2.873, p = 0.031, resp.). Our findings indicate that, besides lymph node metastasis, β-catenin expression may also be a poor prognostic factor for CC while WIF1 could be a potential drug target for treatment of advanced CC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27843945 PMCID: PMC5098059 DOI: 10.1155/2016/4923903
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Association between the expression of WIF1 and β-catenin and clinicopathological parameters of CC (stages IA–IIB).
| Variable | Cases | WIF1 |
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | (%) | Negative | Positive |
| Negative | Positive |
| |
| Histologic subtype | ||||||||
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 172 | 87.8 | 133 | 39 | NS | 58 | 114 | NS |
| Adenocarcinoma | 24 | 12.2 | 16 | 8 | 5 | 19 | ||
| FIGO stage | ||||||||
| IA | 16 | 8.2 | 13 | 3 | NS | 6 | 10 | NS |
| IB1, IIA1 | 102 | 52.0 | 77 | 25 | 31 | 71 | ||
| IB2, IIA2 | 64 | 32.7 | 46 | 18 | 25 | 39 | ||
| IIB | 14 | 7.1 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 13 | ||
| Tumor grade | ||||||||
| G1 | 35 | 19.2 | 27 | 8 | NS | 6 | 29 | NS |
| G2/G3 | 147 | 80.8 | 112 | 35 | 41 | 106 | ||
| Parametrial invasion | ||||||||
| Negative | 186 | 94.9 | 141 | 45 | NS | 62 | 124 | NS |
| Positive | 10 | 5.1 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 9 | ||
| Surgical margin involved | ||||||||
| No | 189 | 96.4 | 143 | 46 | NS | 63 | 126 | NS |
| Yes | 7 | 3.6 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 7 | ||
| Lymph node metastasis | ||||||||
| Negative | 142 | 72.4 | 103 | 39 | NS | 51 | 91 | NS |
| Positive | 54 | 27.6 | 46 | 8 | 12 | 42 | ||
| Tumor size (cm) | ||||||||
| ≤4 | 117 | 59.7 | 90 | 27 | NS | 36 | 81 | NS |
| >4 | 79 | 40.3 | 59 | 20 | 27 | 52 | ||
| Cervical stromal invasion | ||||||||
| ≤ one second | 86 | 43.9 | 56 | 30 |
| 27 | 59 | NS |
| > one second | 110 | 56.1 | 93 | 17 | 34 | 76 | ||
| Lymphovascular invasion | ||||||||
| Negative | 93 | 61.6 | 64 | 29 |
| 33 | 60 |
|
| Positive | 58 | 38.4 | 49 | 9 | 10 | 48 | ||
| Age (years) | ||||||||
| ≤35 | 35 | 17.9 | 30 | 5 | NS | 9 | 26 | NS |
| >35 | 161 | 82.1 | 119 | 42 | 54 | 107 | ||
NS: not significant; HPF: high-power field. aThe p value was determined using the χ 2 test. Significant p values are shown with bold font. The number of patients is less than 196 because of missing data. Age (range: 23–66 y, median: 42 y).
Figure 1WIF1 and β-catenin staining images of human cervical tissues by IHC. ((a), (c)) Positive cytoplasmic staining of WIF1 was observed in both NCE and CIN. ((b), (d)) Positive membranous staining with no cytoplasmic/nuclear staining of β-catenin was observed in both NCE and CIN. (e) Positive nuclear staining without membranous/cytoplasmic staining of WIF1 was observed in CC. (f) Positive cytoplasmic staining of β-catenin was observed in CC. Magnification: ×200 (hematoxylin counterstained). Insets are magnified images from selected areas (small squares).
Comparison of WIF1 and β-catenin expression in NCE, CIN, and CC.
| Variable | Cases (number) |
| WIF1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative | Positive |
| Negative | Positive |
| ||
| CC | 196 | 63 | 133 (67.9%) | <0.01b | 149 | 47 (24.0%) | <0.001c |
| CIN | 39 | 22 | 17 (43.6%) | 16 | 23 (59.0%) | ||
| NCE | 41 | 27 | 14 (34.1%) | 17 | 24 (58.5%) | ||
aThe p value was determined using the χ 2 test. b p < 0.01 was found in the ratio of β-catenin positive expression when compared to CC and CIN or CC and NCE; c p < 0.001 was found in the ratio of WIF1 positive expression when compared to CC and CIN or CC and NCE; no significant differences were observed when comparing CIN and NCE.
The relationship of WIF1 and β-catenin in CC.
| Variable | WIF1 |
| Correlation coefficient | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (−) | (+) | |||
|
| ||||
| (−) | 23 | 40 |
| −0.637 |
| (+) | 126 | 7 | ||
aThe p value was determined using the χ 2 test.
Figure 2Comparison of WIF1 and β-catenin expression in CC. The relationship of WIF1 and β-catenin immunostaining for three representative cases: ((a), (b)) Case 102, indicating strong WIF1 cytoplasmic staining and negative β-catenin cytoplasmic/nuclear staining; ((c), (d)) Case 169, which shows moderate immunostaining for both WIF1 and β-catenin; ((e), (f)) Case 4, showing negative WIF1 cytoplasmic staining and strong β-catenin cytoplasmic staining. Magnification: ×200. Insets are magnified images from selected areas (small squares).
Figure 3Pleomorphic WIF1 staining appearances of CC cells with mitotic figures. The blue-stained (hematoxylin stain) nuclei and brown-stained (WIF1 stain) cytoplasm were characteristic. (a) CC cells in metaphase with small short rod-like nuclei and medium-sized cytoplasm were shown on the right while CC cells in telophase with mirror image were seen on the left. (b) CC cells in prophase with round nuclei and intermediate-sized cytoplasm (sunflower-like appearance) were shown. (c) CC cells in triploid mitotic figures with apparently lobulated nuclei and abundant brown-stained cytoplasm were shown. Magnification: ×400. Insets are magnified images from selected areas (small squares).
Figure 4Kaplan-Meier 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 5-year overall survival (OS) curves for patients with cervical cancer. ((a) and (c)) Patients with β-catenin-positive tumors tended to have poorer DFS and OS. ((b) and (d)) Patients with WIF1-positive expression had significantly better DFS and OS than those with negative results.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of factors associated with DFS and OS for patients with CC.
| Variable | 5-year DFSc | 5-year OSc | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariated | Univariate | Multivariated | |||||
|
|
| HRb | 95% CI |
|
| HRb | 95% CI | |
| FIGO stage | ||||||||
| IA | < | NS |
| NS | ||||
| IB1, IIA1 | ||||||||
| IB2, IIA2 | ||||||||
| IIB | ||||||||
| Parametrial invasion | ||||||||
| Negative |
| NS |
| NS | ||||
| Positive | ||||||||
| Surgical margin involved | ||||||||
| No |
| NS |
| NS | ||||
| Yes | ||||||||
| Lymph node metastasis | ||||||||
| Negative | < | < | 5.029 | 2.623–9.645 | < | < | 5.058 | 2.524–10.137 |
| Positive | ||||||||
| Tumor size (cm) | ||||||||
| ≤4 | < | NS |
| NS | ||||
| >4 | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||
| Negative |
|
| 2.588 | 1.071–6.251 |
|
| 2.873 | 1.102–7.492 |
| Positive | ||||||||
DFS: disease-free survival; OS: overall survival; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; NS: not significant; HPF: high-power field. aSignificant p values are shown in bold font. bHR > 1 indicates that risk for recurrence/death increased; HR < 1 indicates that risk for recurrence/death decreased. cUnivariate and multivariate analyses and Cox proportional hazards regression model. dVariables associated with survival by univariate analysis were adopted as covariates in multivariate analyses.