| Literature DB >> 28615991 |
Ai-Hua Chen1, Yu-E Qin1, Wen-Fan Tang1, Jing Tao1, Hua-Mei Song1, Manzhen Zuo1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence indicated that the aberrant expression of microRNA plays a crucial role in the development of cervical cancer. The overall shorter survival was strongly related to the abnormal expression of microRNA-34a (miR-34a) and microRNA-206 (miR-206), which target B cell lymphoma-2(Bcl2) and c-Met. Hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/c-Met pathway is related to the occurrence, development and prognosis of cervical cancer, and c-Met is significantly overexpressed in cervical squamous cell carcinoma. Bcl2 is also considered to be a promising target for developing novel anticancer treatments.Entities:
Keywords: Cervical cancer; MiR-206; MiR-34a; qRT-PCR
Year: 2017 PMID: 28615991 PMCID: PMC5466768 DOI: 10.1186/s12935-017-0431-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Cell Int ISSN: 1475-2867 Impact factor: 5.722
Fig. 1Comparison of Bcl2 and c-Met expression level between cervical cancer tissues and normal tissues. a and e: tumor-adjacent normal cervical tissue; b and f: Ib; c and g: IIIa; d and h: IIIb. a, b, c, d: Bcl2; e, f, g, h: c-Met
Association of Bcl2 and c-Met expression with clinicopathological features
| Variables | No. of cases | No. of expression of Bc12 | No. of expression of c-Met | Bc12 ( | c-Met ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low = 30 | High = 11 | Low = 29 | High = 12 | ||||
| Tumor size (cm) | |||||||
| >4 | 18 | 17 | 1 | 17 | 1 | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| ≤4 | 23 | 13 | 10 | 12 | 11 | ||
| Histological grades | |||||||
| Well differentiated | 4 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0.056 | 0.06 |
| Moderate differentiated | 34 | 25 | 9 | 24 | 10 | ||
| Poorly differentiated | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | ||
| FIGO stage | |||||||
| Ib–IIa | 25 | 24 | 1 | 25 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| IIb–IIIa | 12 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 8 | ||
| IIIb above | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | ||
| Lymph node metasis | |||||||
| Yes | 17 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| No | 24 | 23 | 1 | 22 | 2 | ||
Fig. 2Survival analysis of cervical patients by Kaplan–Meier method (Bcl2)
Fig. 3Survival analysis of cervical patients by Kaplan–Meier method (c-Met)
Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic parameters by Cox (Bcl2)
| Clinicopathological characteristics | Relative risk (RR) | Univariate log-rank test ( | Cox multivariable analysis ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor diameter (cm) | 1.220 | 0.03 | 0.791 |
| Histological grades | 0.422 | 0.04 | 0.188 |
| FIGO stage | 1.486 | 0.002 | 0.04 |
| Lymph node metastasis | 6.130 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bcl2 expression (high/low) | 1.554 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic parameters by Cox (c-Met)
| Clinicopathological characteristics | Relative risk (RR) | Univariate log-rank test ( | Cox multivariable analysis ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor diameter (cm) | 1.148 | 0.042 | 0.801 |
| Histological grades | 0.409 | 0.056 | 0.202 |
| FIGO stage | 1.496 | 0.003 | 0.04 |
| Lymph node metastasis | 6.695 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| c-Met expression (high/low) | 1.651 | 0.007 | 0.039 |
Fig. 4Comparison of miR-34a and miR-206 expression level between cervical cancer tissues and normal tissues
Association of miR-34a and miR-206 expression with clinicopathological features
| Variables | No. of cases | No. of expression of miR-34a | No. of expression of miR-206 | miR-34a ( | miR-206 ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low = 21 | High = 20 | Low = 23 | High = 18 | ||||
| Tumor size (cm) | |||||||
| >4 | 18 | 4 | 14 | 5 | 13 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| ≤4 | 23 | 17 | 6 | 18 | 5 | ||
| Histological grades | |||||||
| Well differentiated | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 0.029 | 0.023 |
| Moderate differentiated | 34 | 18 | 16 | 20 | 14 | ||
| Poorly differentiated | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | ||
| FIGO stage | |||||||
| Ib–IIa | 25 | 24 | 1 | 7 | 18 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| IIb–IIIa | 12 | 6 | 6 | 12 | 0 | ||
| IIIb above | 4 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | ||
| Lymph node metasis | |||||||
| Yes | 17 | 15 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| No | 24 | 6 | 18 | 6 | 18 | ||
Fig. 5Survival analysis of cervical patients by Kaplan–Meier method (miR-34a)
Fig. 6Survival analysis of cervical patients by Kaplan–Meier method (miR-206)
Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic parameters by Cox (miR-34a)
| Clinicopathological characteristics | Relative risk (RR) | Univariate log-rank test ( | Cox multivariable analysis ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor diameter (cm) | 1.001 | 0.047 | 0.998 |
| Histological grades | 0.450 | 0.032 | 0.218 |
| FIGO stage | 1.757 | 0.002 | 0.038 |
| Lymph node metastasis | 6.567 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| miR-34a expression (high/low) | 1.409 | 0.002 | 0.038 |
Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic parameters by Cox (miR-206)
| Clinicopathological characteristics | Relative risk (RR) | Univariate log-rank test ( | Cox multivariable analysis ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor diameter (cm) | 1.170 | 0.036 | 0.775 |
| Histological grades | 0.478 | 0.041 | 0.238 |
| FIGO stage | 1.984 | 0.002 | 0.01 |
| Lymph node metastasis | 7.753 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| miR-206 expression (high/low) | 1.885 | 0.002 | 0.008 |