| Literature DB >> 28860802 |
Ming Sun1, Wenyan Zhao2, Yuecan Zeng3, Di Zhang4, Zhaofu Chen1, Caigang Liu5, Bin Wu1.
Abstract
The study aimed to investigate the clinical significance of fibrous sheath interacting protein 1 (FSIP1) in bladder cancer, and its potential relevance to the survival of patients with bladder cancer. A total of 225 surgical excised-bladder cancer tissues were collected from the patients with the follow-up data >5 years. The FSIP1 expressions were assayed using immunohistochemistry. The messenger RNA (mRNA) and/or protein levels of FSIP1 in fresh bladder tumor tissues as well as bladder cancer cell lines were measured by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and Western blotting analysis. The correlation of FSIP1 expression with clinicopathological parameters was also evaluated. Western blotting analysis revealed that FSIP1 protein was detected in 94.1% (16/17) of bladder tumor specimens and in all three bladder cancer cell lines (5637, BIU-87, and T24 in particular), with significantly higher expression than those of their controls. Quantitative real-time PCR demonstrated an increased FSIP1 mRNA expression level in bladder cancer tissues than in normal adjacent tissues (P=0.012). FSIP1 overexpression showed good correlation with tumor stage and lymph node metastasis (P=0.027 and 0.000, respectively). Positive FSIP1 expression was independently associated with an unfavorable overall and disease-free survival by multivariate Cox regression (P=0.037 and 0.019, respectively). FSIP1 overexpression is associated with unfavorable prognosis in patients with bladder cancer. Thus, FSIP1 represents a potential therapeutic or predictive target for bladder cancer.Entities:
Keywords: bladder cancer; fibrous sheath interacting protein 1; metastasis; prognosis; survival
Year: 2017 PMID: 28860802 PMCID: PMC5558570 DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S143491
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Onco Targets Ther ISSN: 1178-6930 Impact factor: 4.147
The comparison of clinicopathological characteristics between FSIP1-positive and FSIP1-negative bladder cancer patients (n=225)
| Variables | N | FSIP1-negative | FSIP1-positive | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.063 | |||
| Female | 34 | 21 | 13 | |
| Male | 191 | 85 | 106 | |
| Age (years) | 0.108 | |||
| <60 | 121 | 63 | 58 | |
| ≥60 | 104 | 43 | 61 | |
| Tumor grade | 0.682 | |||
| G1/2 | 122 | 59 | 63 | |
| G3 | 103 | 47 | 56 | |
| Clinical stage | 0.027 | |||
| Ta–T1 | 91 | 51 | 40 | |
| T2–T4 | 134 | 55 | 79 | |
| Tumor number | 0.203 | |||
| Unifocal | 112 | 48 | 64 | |
| Multifocal | 113 | 58 | 55 | |
| Tumor size | 0.765 | |||
| <3 cm | 125 | 60 | 65 | |
| ≥3 cm | 100 | 46 | 54 | |
| Lymph node metastasis | 0.000 | |||
| No (N0) | 151 | 91 | 60 | |
| Yes (N1–N3) | 74 | 15 | 59 |
Note: The P-value was calculated using chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test.
Abbreviation: FSIP1, fibrous sheath interacting protein 1.
Figure 1Expression of FSIP1 in bladder cancer cell lines and human bladder tumor tissues.
Notes: (A, B) Western blotting analysis (16 paired) showed that the expression of FSIP1 in BTs was significantly higher than that in matched ANTs (P=0.009). (C) Western blotting analysis showed that FSIP1 protein expressions were significantly increased in three human bladder cancer cell lines (5637, BIU-87, and T24 in particular), compared with normal human urothelium cells SV-HUC-1. (D) Quantitative real-time PCR analysis showed an increased messenger RNA expression of FSIP1 in BTs as compared with ANTs (n=10, P=0.012).
Abbreviations: ANTs, adjacent noncancerous tissues; BTs, bladder tumor tissues; FSIP1, fibrous sheath interacting protein 1; PCR, polymerase chain reaction.
Figure 2Immunohistochemical staining of fibrous sheath interacting protein 1 in bladder cancer tissues (×400 magnification).
Notes: (A) Negative expression (0 score); (B) weak positive expression (2 scores); (C) strong positive expression (6 scores).
Correlation between fibrous sheath interacting protein 1 expression and the clinicopathological characteristics of bladder cancer by Spearman’s correlation analysis
| Variables | Spearman’s R ( |
|---|---|
| Gender | 0.124 (0.064) |
| Age | 0.107 (0.109) |
| Tumor grade | 0.027 (0.684) |
| Clinical stage | 0.147 (0.027) |
| Tumor number | 0.085 (0.205) |
| Tumor size | 0.020 (0.766) |
| Lymph node metastasis | 0.376 (0.000) |
Figure 3Kaplan–Meier survival analysis of overall survival, disease-specific survival, progression-free survival, and metastasis-free survival between FSIP1-positive and FSIP1-negative bladder cancer patients (n=225).
Note: The log-rank test was used to calculate the P-value (all P<0.01).
Abbreviation: FSIP1, fibrous sheath interacting protein 1.
The prognostic factors for overall and disease-free survival in bladder cancer patients by univariate Cox regression analysis (n=225)
| Variables | Disease-free survival
| Overall survival
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | |||
| Gender (male vs female) | 1.596 | 0.930–2.740 | 0.090 | 1.376 | 0.784–2.416 | 0.266 |
| Age (≥60 years vs <60 years) | 1.050 | 0.739–1.492 | 0.785 | 1.040 | 0.711–1.520 | 0.840 |
| Tumor grade (G3 vs G1/2) | 5.717 | 3.825–8.543 | 0.000 | 9.387 | 5.654–15.586 | 0.000 |
| Clinical stage (T2–4 vs Ta–1) | 9.064 | 5.322–15.437 | 0.000 | 19.374 | 8.470–44.314 | 0.000 |
| Tumor number (multifocal vs unifocal) | 2.929 | 2.010–4.269 | 0.000 | 2.736 | 1.822–4.107 | 0.000 |
| Tumor size (≥3 cm vs <3 cm) | 1.139 | 0.801–1.620 | 0.469 | 1.156 | 0.790–1.691 | 0.456 |
| Lymph node metastasis (yes vs no) | 5.759 | 3.980–8.332 | 0.000 | 6.086 | 4.074–9.093 | 0.000 |
| Fibrous sheath interacting protein 1 expression (positive vs negative) | 2.094 | 1.451–3.022 | 0.000 | 2.115 | 1.419–3.154 | 0.000 |
Abbreviation: HR, hazard ratio.
The prognostic factors for overall and disease-free survival in bladder cancer patients by multivariate Cox regression analysis (n=225)
| Variables | Disease-free survival
| Overall survival
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | |||
| Gender (male vs female) | 1.273 | 0.730–2.221 | 0.395 | 1.152 | 0.642–2.067 | 0.636 |
| Age (≥60 years vs <60 years) | 0.866 | 0.596–1.260 | 0.506 | 0.873 | 0.585–1.303 | 0.506 |
| Tumor grade (G3vs G1/2) | 3.015 | 1.859–4.891 | 0.000 | 4.066 | 2.263–7.305 | 0.000 |
| Clinical stage (T2–4 vs Ta–1) | 3.796 | 2.038–7.072 | 0.000 | 7.018 | 2.819–17.472 | 0.000 |
| Tumor number (multifocal vs unifocal) | 1.644 | 1.063–2.542 | 0.025 | 1.378 | 0.871–2.179 | 0.170 |
| Tumor size (≥3 cm vs <3 cm) | 0.993 | 0.679–1.453 | 0.972 | 1.124 | 0.745–1.696 | 0.576 |
| Lymph node metastasis (yes vs no) | 1.934 | 1.196–3.128 | 0.007 | 1.835 | 1.106–3.044 | 0.019 |
| Fibrous sheath interacting protein 1 expression (positive vs negative) | 1.704 | 1.090–2.664 | 0.019 | 1.671 | 1.033–2.704 | 0.037 |
Abbreviation: HR, hazard ratio.