| Literature DB >> 28052770 |
Gabriela Gremel1, Dijana Djureinovic1, Marjut Niinivirta2, Alexander Laird3,4, Oscar Ljungqvist5, Henrik Johannesson5, Julia Bergman1, Per-Henrik Edqvist1, Sanjay Navani6, Naila Khan6, Tushar Patil6, Åsa Sivertsson7, Mathias Uhlén7, David J Harrison8, Gustav J Ullenhag2, Grant D Stewart4,9, Fredrik Pontén10,11.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an unmet clinical need for better prognostic and diagnostic tools for renal cell carcinoma (RCC).Entities:
Keywords: Cubilin; Immunohistochemistry; Independent prognostic biomarker; Renal cell carcinoma
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28052770 PMCID: PMC5215231 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-3030-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1CUBN discovery pipeline and the standard Human Protein Atlas cancer test set. a The Human Protein Atlas database (www.proteinatlas.org and unpublished data) was systematically searched for cancer type-specific proteins using automated and manual searches. Staining patterns were reviewed and 15 proteins with RCC-enriched expression chosen for further antibody validation. Following extensive antibody validation and exclusion of antibodies with overlapping staining patterns, three antibodies were selected for validation of RCC-specific staining on multi-cancer TMA cohort 1. Two of these biomarkers were validated further on independent RCC-specific cohorts (cohort 2 and 3) and CUBN identified as highly RCC-specific protein. b CUBN staining on routine Human Protein Atlas cancer test set. Two antibodies, HPA004133 and HPA043854, targeting different epitopes on the same protein generated similar staining patterns. Red, orange and yellow coloring indicates cases with strong, moderate and weak staining, respectively. Grey corresponds to CUBN negative cases
Fig. 2CUBN antibody validation. a Two antibodies targeting the CUBN protein at different epitopes (HPA043854 and HPA004133) were tested using immunohistochemistry on a range of normal and malignant tissue. Included in this figure are staining examples from normal human kidney (K) and two renal cell carcinoma cases (RCC1 and RCC2). As chromogen 3,3’-Diaminobenzidine (DAB) was used. b RNA-seq expression data from normal human kidney (K) and the renal cell carcinoma cases (RCC1 and RCC2). Expression levels are indicated as fragments per kilobase of exon model per million mapped reads (FPKM). c Western blot analysis of CUBN expression in protein extracts from normal human kidney and the renal cell carcinoma cases RCC1 and RCC2 using HPA043854 and HPA004133
CUBN positivity rates on multi-cancer TMA cohort (Cohort 1)
| Cancer origin | N (912 total) | CUBN positive N (%a) |
|---|---|---|
| Prostate | 57 | 0 (0) |
| Colon | 59 | 0 (0) |
| Breast | 60 | 0 (0) |
| Stomach | 59 | 0 (0) |
| Lung | 105 | 0 (0) |
| Ovary | 60 | 0 (0) |
| Endometrium | 59 | 0 (0) |
| Cervix | 59 | 0 (0) |
| Hepatocellular | 28 | 0 (0) |
| Neuroendocrine | 30 | 0 (0) |
| Sarcoma | 60 | 0 (0) |
| Urothelial | 20 | 0 (0) |
| Renal cell carc. | 39 | 22 (56) |
| - ccRCC | 30 | 18 (60) |
| - other | 9 | 4 (44) |
| Lymphoma | 20 | 0 (0) |
| Melanoma | 20 | 0 (0) |
| Testis | 18 | 0 (0) |
| Oesophagus | 22 | 0 (0) |
| Thyroid | 18 | 0 (0) |
| Head and Neck | 20 | 1 (5) |
| Pancreas | 51 | 0 (0) |
| Cholangiocarc. | 41 | 0 (0) |
| Gall bladder carc. | 7 | 0 (0) |
| CUBN specificityb | 100% | |
| CUBN PPVb | 96% |
N number of patients, ccRCC clear cell renal cell carcinoma
aPercentage of positive cases within tumor type
bFor RCC compared to all other cases; PPV, positive predictive value
Fig. 3Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of ccRCC patients, stratified according to CUBN expression. a Overall survival and b ccRCC-specific survival of patients in cohort 2. c Overall survival and d metastasis-free survival of patients in cohort 3
Fig. 4Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of ccRCC patients, stratified according to CUBN expression. a One-year metastasis-free survival and b five-year metastasis-free survival of patients in cohort 3
Association of CUBN positivity with clinicopathological parameters in ccRCC
| Variable | Cohort 2 | Cohort 3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| CUBN negative | CUBN positive |
|
| CUBN negative | CUBN positive |
| |
| Spread at diagnosis | 131 | 114 | ||||||
| Local | 50 (96) | 72 (91) | 15 (33) | 39 (57) | ||||
| Metastatic | 2 (4) | 7 (9) | 0.317b | 31 (67) | 29 (43) | 0.009a | ||
| T-Stage | 123 | |||||||
| T1-T2 | 5 (10) | 14 (19) | n.a. | |||||
| T3-T4 | 45 (90) | 59 (81) | 0.167a | |||||
| Fuhrman Grade | 95 | |||||||
| 1–2 | 8 (23) | 31 (52) | n.a. | |||||
| 3–4 | 27 (77) | 29 (48) | 0.006a | |||||
| Nodal Status | 131 | |||||||
| Negative | 39 (75) | 73 (92) | n.a. | |||||
| Positive | 13 (25) | 6 (8) | 0.006a | |||||
N number of patients
aχ2 test
bFisher’s exact test; n.a., not available
Cox regression analysis of overall survival (Cohort 2)
| Prognostic factor | Univariate | Multivariatea | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | (95% CI) |
| HR | (95% CI) |
| |
| CUBN (pos. vs. neg., ref) | 0.411 | 0.263–0.641 | <0.001 | 0.382 | 0.203–0.719 | 0.003 |
| T-Stage (T3-T4 vs. T1-T2, ref) | 1.897 | 1.002–3.593 | 0.049 | 1.689 | 0.746–3.825 | 0.209 |
| Fuhrman Grade (3–4 vs. 1–2, ref) | 1.822 | 1.059–3.136 | 0.030 | 1.217 | 0.665–2.226 | 0.524 |
| Nodal Status (pos. vs. neg., ref) | 4.208 | 2.397–7.386 | <0.001 | 4.041 | 1.840–8.874 | 0.001 |
HR hazard ratio, CI confidence interval
aAdjusted for all other variables; pos., positive; neg., negative; ref, referent group