| Literature DB >> 28036281 |
Yinlong Yang1, Jinxian Qian1, Youqun Xiang2, Yizuo Chen2, Jinmiao Qu2.
Abstract
Although a few studies have assessed the prognostic value of long noncoding RNA HOTTIP in patients with malignant tumors, the relationship between HOTTIP and clinical outcome of breast cancer remains elusive. The aim of this study is to explore the prognostic significance of HOTTIP in breast cancer patients. A meta-analysis was performed to involve the eligible studies to investigate the association of HOTTIP expression level with outcome in cancer patients. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of HOTTIP for cancer survival were calculated. Five relevant articles involving 460 patients with various solid carcinomas were included in this meta-analysis. For overall survival, high HOTTIP expression could significantly predict worse outcome with the pooled HR of 2.29 (95 % CI 1.72-3.03, P < 0.00001). Furthermore, Gene Expression Omnibus was performed to evaluate the association of HOTTIP expression with the prognosis in breast cancer patients. It was also found an indication that high HOTTIP expression was associated with worse survival in breast cancer patients by microarray analysis (GSE20711, GSE16446 and GSE9195). Finally, association between HOTTIP levels and clinicopathological factors and prognosis was also analyzed in an independent validation cohort including 100 breast cancer cases. HOTTIP expression was correlated with tumor size (P=0.025), lymph node status (P=0.009) and TNM stage (P=0.0001) in the breast cancer validation cohort. The Kaplan-Meier survival curves indicated that breast cancer patients with high HOTTIP expression had worse overall survival (P=0.0139) and disease-free survival (P=0.0003). Multivariate survival analysis based on the Cox proportional hazards model showed that HOTTP is considered as an independent prognostic factor in breast cancer patients. Together, our combined results suggest that high HOTTIP expression may be serving as an unfavorable prognosis predictor for breast cancer patients.Entities:
Keywords: HOTTIP; breast cancer; long non-coding RNA; prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28036281 PMCID: PMC5351673 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.14304
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Flow diagram of the identification and selection of studies
Characteristics of the all included studies in the meta-analysis
| Study | Year | Country | Cancer type | Number | Sample | Cut-off | Method | Outcome | Follow-up(months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quagliata | 2014 | Switzerland | Hepatocellular cancer | 52 | Tissue | ROC | qRT-PCR | OS | ≥60 |
| Zhang | 2014 | China | Tongue squamous cell carcinoma | 86 | Tissue | Median | qRT-PCR | OS | 38(range,23–60) |
| Ren | 2015 | China | Colorectal cancer | 156 | Tissue | Median | qRT-PCR | OS | 46(range,33-65) |
| Li | 2015 | China | Osteosarcoma | 68 | Tissue | Median | qRT-PCR | OS | ≥60 |
| Ye | 2016 | China | Gastric cancer | 98 | Tissue | Median | qRT-PCR | OS | ≥60 |
ROC, receiver operating characteristic; qRT-PCR, quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction; OS, overall survival.
Figure 2Forest plots of studies evaluating hazard ratios of overall survival comparing high and low HOTTIP expression among patients with solid cancer
Figure 3Funnel plot for identifying publication bias in the association between HOTTIP expression and overall survival of patients with solid tumors
Figure 4Up-regulated HOTTIP was associated with poor prognosis in breast cancer
Overall survival (OS) and relapse free survival (RFS) analysis of patients with low and high HOTTIP expression using a Kaplan-Meier curve in the GSE20711 A. GSE16446 B. and GSE9195. C. datasets. HR: hazard ratio.
Correlation between HOTTIP expression and clinicopathological features in patients with breast cancer
| Variables | HOTTIP expression | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low(n=50) | High(n=50) | ||
| Age | 0.161 | ||
| ≦50 | 23 | 30 | |
| >50 | 27 | 20 | |
| Menopausal status | 0.728 | ||
| Premenopausal | 25 | 32 | |
| Postmenopausal | 25 | 28 | |
| Tumor size | 0.025* | ||
| ≦2cm | 26 | 15 | |
| >2cm | 24 | 35 | |
| Lymph node status | 0.009* | ||
| Negative | 31 | 18 | |
| Positive | 19 | 32 | |
| Grade | 0.685 | ||
| I-II | 20 | 22 | |
| III | 30 | 28 | |
| ER status | 0.161 | ||
| Negative | 21 | 28 | |
| Positive | 29 | 22 | |
| PR | 0.422 | ||
| Negative | 25 | 29 | |
| Positive | 25 | 21 | |
| HER-2/neu status | 0.135 | ||
| Negative | 30 | 25 | |
| Positive | 20 | 25 | |
| Clinical stage | 0.0001* | ||
| I-II | 42 | 24 | |
| III | 8 | 26 | |
Figure 5Kaplan–Meier survival curves were stratified by HOTTIP expression level in breast cancer patients
Patients in high HOTTIP group showed decreased disease-free survival (DFS, A) and overall survival (OS, B), as compared with low HOTTIP group, p = 0.0003 and p = 0.0139, respectively. The p value was calculated using the log-rank test.
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses of overall survival in breast cancer patients
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR(95%CI) | P value | HR(95%CI) | P value | |
| Age(years), ≦50 versus >50 | 1.245(0.446-3.502) | 0.671 | ||
| Menopausal status, Premenopausal versus Postmenopausal | 1.462(0.520-4.112) | 0.472 | ||
| Tumor size(cm), ≦2 versus >2 | 2.411(0.856-6.791) | 0.096 | ||
| Lymph node status, negative versus positive | 3.671(1.196-11.262) | 0.023 | 0.821(0.147-4.587) | 0.822 |
| Grade I-II versus III | 1.973(0.674-5.770) | 0.215 | ||
| ER status, negative versus positive | 0.247(0.075-0.814) | 0.022 | 0.408(0.052-3.194) | 0.393 |
| RR status, negative versus positive | 0.190(0.051-0.708) | 0.013 | 0.206(0.024-1.738) | 0.147 |
| HER-2/neu status, negative versus positive | 5.156(1.754-15.157) | 0.003 | 1.665(0.427-6.941) | 0.462 |
| TNM stage, I-II versus III | 2.996(1.697-5.290) | 0.000 | 2.729(1.103-6.755) | 0.030 |
| HOTTIP expression, low versus high | 11.294(2.435-52.397 | 0.002 | 7.121(1.176-43.109) | 0.033 |
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses of disease-free survival in breast cancer patients
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR(95%CI) | P value | HR(95%CI) | P value | |
| Age(years), ≦50 versus >50 | 1.123(0.475-2.660) | 0.791 | ||
| Menopausal status, Premenopausal versus Postmenopausal | 2.003(0.841-4.769) | 0.117 | ||
| Tumor size(cm), ≦2 versus >2 | 2.776(1.159-6.649) | 0.022 | 1.849(0.555-6.162) | 0.317 |
| Lymph node status, negative versus positive | 3.473(1.417-8.515) | 0.007 | 0.772(0.184-3.238) | 0.723 |
| Grade I-II versus III | 2.837(1.127-7.146) | 0.027 | 1.188(0.328-4.296) | 0.793 |
| ER status, negative versus positive | 0.579(0.244-1.373) | 0.215 | ||
| PR status, negative versus positive | 0.463(0.190-1.125) | 0.089 | ||
| HER-2/neu status, negative versus positive | 4.943(1.903-12.843) | 0.001 | 2.848(0.802-10.119) | 0.106 |
| TNM stage, I-II versus III | 3.786(2.095-6.844) | 0.000 | 2.555(1.219-5.353) | 0.013 |
| HOTTIP expression, low versus high | 9.750(3.319-28.645) | 0.000 | 4.083(1.133-14.713) | 0.03 |