| Literature DB >> 28118855 |
Shaosen Chen1, Weigang Yan2, Weiya Lang3, Jing Yu4, Li Xu5, Xinyu Xu5, Yunlong Liu6, Hongguang Bao7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: SESN2 plays important roles in the regulation of cell survival, cell protection, and tumor suppression. However, the relationship between SESN2 expression and the clinicopathological attributes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is barely investigated.Entities:
Keywords: Hepatocellular carcinoma; IHC; SESN2; Western blotting; qPCR
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28118855 PMCID: PMC5260065 DOI: 10.1186/s13000-016-0591-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagn Pathol ISSN: 1746-1596 Impact factor: 2.644
Fig. 1One-step quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) test was performed to examine SESN2 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and non-cancerous tissues. The SESN2 mRNA expression was statistically lower in HCC tissues (1.73 ± 0.165) than that of in the corresponding noncancerous tissues (2.34 ± 0.145) (* p < 0.05.)
Fig. 2SESN2 expression detected by western blotting analysis in 15 HCC and noncancerous tissue samples. The expression level of SESN2 in HCC were significantly reduced comparing to that of in noncancerous tissues (* p < 0.05)
Fig. 3Immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis in HCC tissue microarray (TMA) was executed to detect SESN2 expression. A1-A3 High staining of SESN2 in HCC sample. B1-B3 Low staining of SESN2 in HCC sample. C1-C3 High staining of SESN2 in noncancerous sample. D1-D3 Low staining of SESN2 in non-cancerous sample. E1-E3 Negative staining of SESN2 in HCC sample
Relationship of high SESN2 expression with clinicopathological characteristics in HCC
| Groups | No. | SESN2 |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| + | % | ||||
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 83 | 31 | 37.3 | 0.088 | 0.767 |
| Female | 17 | 7 | 41.2 | ||
| Age (years) | |||||
| < 60 | 58 | 18 | 31.0 | 2.844 | 0.092 |
| ≥ 60 | 42 | 20 | 47.6 | ||
| Hepatitis B virus infection | |||||
| Positive | 41 | 10 | 24.4 | 5.463 | 0.019* |
| Negative | 59 | 28 | 47.5 | ||
| Hepatitis C virus infection | |||||
| Positive | 52 | 31 | 59.6 | 21.484 | 0.001* |
| Negative | 48 | 7 | 14.6 | ||
| Liver cirrhosis | |||||
| Positive | 58 | 21 | 36.2 | 0.189 | 0.664 |
| Negative | 42 | 17 | 40.5 | ||
| Tumor size (cm) | |||||
| > 5 | 57 | 19 | 33.3 | 1.225 | 0.268 |
| ≤ 5 | 43 | 19 | 44.2 | ||
| Lymph node metastasis | |||||
| Positive | 31 | 7 | 22.6 | 4.534 | 0.033* |
| Negative | 69 | 31 | 44.9 | ||
| Distant metastasis | |||||
| Positive | 12 | 4 | 33.3 | 0.126 | 0.723 |
| Negative | 88 | 34 | 38.6 | ||
| TNM stage | |||||
| Stage I-II | 41 | 17 | 41.5 | 0.354 | 0.552 |
| Stage III-IV | 59 | 21 | 35.6 | ||
*p < 0.05
Survival analysis by univariate and multivariate methods to identify prognostic factors in HCC
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR |
| 95% CI | HR |
| 95% CI | |
| SESN2 expression | ||||||
| High versus Low | 0.271 | 0.001* | 0.136–0.542 | 0.308 | 0.003* | 0.140–0.678 |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male versus Female | 1.140 | 0.732 | 0.539–2.414 | |||
| Age (years) | ||||||
| < 60 versus ≥60 | 1.630 | 0.084 | 0.937–2.838 | |||
| Hepatitis B virus infection | ||||||
| Positive versus Negative | 1.111 | 0.900 | 0.526–1.539 | |||
| Hepatitis C virus infection | ||||||
| Positive versus Negative | 1.799 | 0.036* | 1.039–3.114 | 0.940 | 0.851 | 0.493–1.793 |
| Liver cirrhosis | ||||||
| Positive versus Negative | 1.137 | 0.644 | 0.660–1.959 | |||
| Tumour size (cm) | ||||||
| > 5 versus ≤5 | 1.412 | 0.219 | 0.814–2.449 | |||
| Lymph node metastasis | ||||||
| Positive versus Negative | 2.795 | 0.001* | 1.621–4.821 | 1.839 | 0.063 | 0.968–3.495 |
| Distant metastasis | ||||||
| Positive versus Negative | 2.709 | 0.003* | 1.417–5.179 | 0.925 | 0.846 | 0.421–2.033 |
| TNM stage | ||||||
| Stage I-II versus Stage III-IV | 0.276 | 0.001* | 0.144–0.527 | 0.352 | 0.003* | 0.178–0.696 |
*p < 0.05
Fig. 4The Kaplan-Meier curve was drawn to illustrate two independent prognostic factors for overall survival of 100 HCC patients. a Overall survival rate in patients with low SESN2 expression was significantly lower than that in patients with high SESN2 expression. b Overall survival rate in patients with early TNM stage was significantly higher than that in patients with advanced TNM stage