| Literature DB >> 27876891 |
Qiaojuan Guo1, Tianzhu Lu1, Yan Chen1,2, Ying Su1,3, Yuhong Zheng1,2, Zeng Chen1,3, Chao Chen1,3, Shaojun Lin1,4,5, Jianji Pan1,4,5, Xianglin Yuan6.
Abstract
Distant metastasis is the primary failure pattern of nasopharyngeal carcinoma(NPC) in intensity-modulated radiation therapy(IMRT) era. This study was conducted to find the impact of genetic variations in the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase(PI3K)/phosphatase and tensin homologue(PTEN)/v-akt murine thymoma viral oncogene homologue(AKT)/mammalian target of rapamycin(mTOR) pathway on the risk of distant metastasis in NPC. We genotyped 16 single-nucleotide polymorphisms(SNPs) in five core genes in this pathway from 496 patients treated by IMRT with or without chemotherapy. The relationships between genetic polymorphisms and distant progression were evaluated. We observed that two loci in the AKT1 gene(rs3803300 and rs2494738 alone or combined) were associated with prognosis, with patients carrying at least one variant allele had significantly reduced risk of distant failure, especially in N2-3 group. In addition, we found that genetic variation may had some joint effect with N classification in recursive-partitioning analysis(RPA) analysis, with which patients were stratified into four different risk subgroups (RPA model): RPA1(low risk), RPA2(moderate risk), RPA3(high risk) and RPA4(highest risk). Our findings suggested that genetic variations within the PI3K signaling pathway modulate the development and invasion of NPC patients. Further research is needed to replicate the study in other centers and races, and to unravel the functional significance of these polymorphisms.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27876891 PMCID: PMC5120316 DOI: 10.1038/srep37576
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Patients’ characteristics.
| Covariate | n = 496(%) |
|---|---|
| Alive or death | |
| alive | 451 (90.9) |
| death | 45 (9.1) |
| Distant Metastasis | |
| no | 422 (85.1) |
| yes | 74 (14.9) |
| Gender | |
| male | 321 (64.7) |
| female | 175 (35.3) |
| Age (years) | |
| ≤45 | 230 (46.4) |
| >45 | 266 (53.6) |
| T classification | |
| T1 | 126 (25.4) |
| T2 | 81 (16.3) |
| T3 | 118 (23.8) |
| T4 | 171 (34.5) |
| N classification | |
| N0 | 51 (10.3) |
| N1 | 234 (47.2) |
| N2 | 147 (29.6) |
| N3 | 64 (12.9) |
| Clinical Stage | |
| Stage I | 24 (4.8) |
| Stage II | 101 (20.4) |
| Stage III | 159 (32.1) |
| Stage IV | 212 (47.2) |
| Treatment Modality | |
| chemoradiotherapy | 467 (94.2) |
| radiotherapy alone | 29 (5.8) |
| Total Cycles Of Chemotherapy | |
| ≤3 | 188 (37.9) |
| >3 | 308 (62.1) |
Tagging SNP Characteristics.
| SNP | Alleles | SNP type | SNP location | Detectable rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PI3KCA | ||||
| rs6443264 | T/G | intron variant | chr3:9781618 | 100% |
| rs2699887 | G/A | intron variant | chr 3:179148620 | 99.0% |
| AKT1 | ||||
| rs1130214 | G/T | utr variant 5 prime | chr14:104793397 | 96.7% |
| rs3803304 | G/C | intron variant | chr 14:104772809 | 100% |
| rs2494738 | G/A | intron variant | chr 14:104780349 | 93.1% |
| rs2498804 | T/G | upstream variant 2 kb | chr 14:104766758 | 99.0% |
| rs2494732 | T/C | intron variant | chr 14:104772855 | 96.2% |
| rs3803300 | G/A | utr variant 3 prime | chr 14:104803442 | 96.0% |
| AKT2 | ||||
| rs2304186 | G/T | utr variant 3 prime | chr 19:40233814 | 98.4% |
| rs892119 | G/A | intron variant | chr 19:40254165 | 94.0% |
| mTOR | ||||
| rs11121704 | T/C | intron variant | chr 1:11233902 | 100% |
| rs2295080 | G/T | upstream variant 2 kb | chr 1:11262571 | 100% |
| PTEN | ||||
| rs2299939 | C/A | intron variant | chr 10:87897393 | 99.6% |
| rs11202607 | C/T | utr variant 3 prime | chr 10:87967657 | 100% |
| rs701848 | T/C | utr variant 3 prime | chr 10:87966988 | 99.0% |
| rs12569998 | T/G | intron variant | chr 10:87914400 | 99.8% |
Prognostic analysis of clinical characteristics for DMFS.
| Covariate | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95%CI) | p-value | HR (95%CI) | p-value | |
| 1.007 (0.987, 1.028) | 1.008 (0.988, 1.029) | |||
| male | reference | reference | ||
| Female | 0.853 (0.521,1.396) | 0.869 (0.530,1.425) | ||
| T1 | reference | reference | ||
| T2 | 1.082(0.515,2.267) | 1.006 (0.479,2.116) | ||
| T3 | 1.062 (0.542,2.080) | 0.987 (0.500,1.945) | ||
| T4 | 1.229 (0.673,2.246) | 1.149 (0.625,2.113) | ||
| N0 | reference | reference | ||
| N1 | 2.322 (0.544,9.902) | 2.509 (0.580, 10.853) | ||
| N2 | 5.899 (1.412,24.650) | 6.507 (1.526, 27.740) | ||
| N3 | 9.350 (2185,40.019) | 10.807 (2.451,47.653) | ||
| ≤3 cycles | reference | reference | ||
| >3 cycles | 1.123 (0.697,1.810) | 0.808 (0.483,1.353) | ||
Prognostic analysis of individual SNPs for DMFS.
| Covariate | No. of patients | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3y DMFS(%) | p-value | HR (95%CI) | p-value | ||
| 0.069 | 0.151 | ||||
| TT | 68 | 92.0 | Reference | ||
| TG or GG | 428 | 84.2 | 1.958 (0.782,4.905) | ||
| 0.384 | 0.456 | ||||
| GG | 451 | 84.7 | Reference | ||
| GA or AA | 40 | 89.7 | 0.680 (0.247,1.875) | ||
| 0.029 | |||||
| GG | 369 | 86.9 | Reference | ||
| GT or TT | 111 | 78.0 | 1.566 (0.956,2.567) | ||
| 0.592 | 0.649 | ||||
| CC | 412 | 84.7 | Reference | ||
| CG or GG | 84 | 86.8 | 0.861(0.452,1.640) | ||
| 0.106 | |||||
| GG | 85 | 80.5 | Reference | ||
| GA or AA | 377 | 86.9 | 0.530 (0.302,0.929) | ||
| 0.208 | 0.221 | ||||
| TT | 203 | 87.6 | Reference | ||
| TG or GG | 288 | 83.2 | 1.354 (0.833,2.200) | ||
| 0.162 | 0.124 | ||||
| CC | 257 | 87.6 | Reference | ||
| CT or TT | 220 | 83.1 | 1.450 (0.903,2.328) | ||
| 0.025 | |||||
| GG | 52 | 74.5 | Reference | . | |
| GA or AA | 424 | 86.7 | 0.536 (0.292,0.986) | ||
| 0.757 | 0.625 | ||||
| GG | 115 | 88.0 | Reference | ||
| GT or TT | 373 | 84.6 | 1.151(0.656,2.020) | ||
| 0.219 | |||||
| GG | 356 | 84.1 | Reference | ||
| GA/AA | 110 | 88.0 | 0.579 (0.317–1.057) | ||
| 0.165 | |||||
| TT | 422 | 86.3 | Reference | ||
| CT or CC | 74 | 79.5 | 1.655 (0.933,2.935) | ||
| 0.949 | 0 | 0.739 | |||
| TT | 307 | 85.6 | Reference | ||
| GT or GG | 189 | 84.7 | 1.065 (0.665,1.707) | ||
| 0.470 | 0.560 | ||||
| CC | 331 | 84.5 | Reference | ||
| CA or AA | 163 | 86.7 | 0.862 (0.522,1.422) | ||
| 0.460 | 0.569 | ||||
| CC | 385 | 84.4 | Reference | ||
| CT or TT | 111 | 88.1 | 0.844 (0.471,1.512) | ||
| 0.660 | 0.488 | ||||
| TT | 162 | 84.7 | Reference | ||
| TC or CC | 329 | 85.3 | 0.844 (0.523,1.363) | ||
| 0.539 | 0.458 | ||||
| TT | 198 | 83.4 | Reference | ||
| TG/GG | 297 | 86.5 | 0.840 (0.529–1.333) | ||
Figure 1Kaplan-Meier curves of DMFS in NPC patients with different genotypes of (A) AKT1: rs3803300 and (B) AKT1:rs2494738; (C) Kaplan-Meier curves of DMFS in NPC patients with or without unfavorable genotypes.
Figure 2(A) Prognostic grouping by recursive-partitioning analysis(RPA) analysis showed the interactions between SNPs and N classification; (B) Kaplan-Meier curves of DMFS for four different RPA groups; (C) The prognostic effect of RPA grouping on DMFS by multivariate analysis.
Comparison of risk groups based on RPA model, N category and clinical stage.
| RPA model | N category | Clinical stage | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patients distributions | RPA1:43.3% | N0:10.5% | Stage I:5.2% |
| RPA2:14.1% | N1:46.9% | Stage II:20.2% | |
| RPA3:33.4% | N2:29.6% | Stage III:31.8% | |
| RPA4:9.2% | N3:13.0% | Stage IV:42.8% | |
| 5y-DMFS(%) | RPA1:93.7% | N0:95.5% | Stage I:100% |
| RPA2:88.3% | N1:91.7% | Stage II:88.6% | |
| RPA3:81.2% | N2:79.8% | Stage III:86.1% | |
| RPA4:62.7% | N3:70.6% | Stage IV:82.4% | |
| P value | p < 0.001 | p < 0.001 | 0.027 |
| AIC | 741.252 | 745.145 | 759.345 |
| C-index | 0.795 | 0.793 | 0.762 |