| Literature DB >> 29027393 |
Wei Jiang1, Jia Jia Pan2, Ying Hui Deng3, Mei Rong Liang4, Li Hua Yao5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: MicroRNAs (miRNAs) play a vital role in pathogenesis and progression of many cancers, including cervical cancer. However, importance of serum level of miR-101 in cervical cancer has rarely been studied. In the present study, clinical significance and prognostic value of serum miR-101 for cervical cancer was investigated.Entities:
Keywords: Disease Progression; Gynecology; Prognosis; Serum; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms; miRNAs
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29027393 PMCID: PMC5641525 DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2017.28.e75
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Gynecol Oncol ISSN: 2005-0380 Impact factor: 4.401
Fig. 1Expression level of miR-101 in cervical cancer was significantly decreased and positively associated with the prognosis of patients. (A) MiR-101 expression levels of cervical cancer patients (n=307) and healthy persons (n=3) from the TCGA database were analyzed. (B) The survival analysis for 2 groups of patients with low or high expression levels of miR-101.
TCGA, The Cancer Genome Atlas.
Fig. 2The relative expression levels of miR-101 for 182 cervical cancer patients, before and after treatment, and 12 healthy women. The average value is indicated by the horizontal lines among the spots. The serum level of miR-101 was significantly higher in the healthy women compared with that from cervical cancer patients (p<0.001).
Correlation of clinicopathological characteristics and serum miR-101 expression in the cervical cancer patients
| Variables | No. of patients (n=182) | MiR-101 expression | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | High | ||||
| Age (yr) | 0.325 | ||||
| ≤50 | 134 | 56 (41.8) | 78 (58.2) | ||
| >50 | 48 | 24 (50.0) | 24 (50.0) | ||
| FIGO stage | 0.003 | ||||
| IB1–IIA1 | 153 | 60 (39.2) | 93 (60.8) | ||
| IIA2–IIIB | 29 | 20 (69.0) | 9 (31.0) | ||
| Tumor size (cm) | 0.123 | ||||
| ≤4 | 150 | 62 (41.3) | 88 (58.7) | ||
| >4 | 32 | 18 (56.3) | 14 (43.7) | ||
| Histology | 0.972 | ||||
| Squamous | 139 | 61 (43.9) | 78 (56.1) | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 43 | 19 (44.2) | 24 (55.8) | ||
| Differentiation | 0.078 | ||||
| Well-moderate | 161 | 67 (41.6) | 94 (58.4) | ||
| Poor | 21 | 13 (61.9) | 8 (38.1) | ||
| Lymph nodes metastasis | 0.001 | ||||
| No | 145 | 55 (37.9) | 90 (62.1) | ||
| Yes | 37 | 25 (67.6) | 12 (32.4) | ||
| SCC-Ag (ng/L) | 0.007 | ||||
| ≤4 | 132 | 50 (37.9) | 82 (62.1) | ||
| >4 | 50 | 30 (60.0) | 20 (40.0) | ||
Values are presented as number (%).
FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; SCC-Ag, squamous cell carcinoma antigen.
Fig. 3The association between serum miR-101 level and overall survival time was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. The survival period was shorter in the cervical cancer patients with a lower expression level of miR-101 (p=0.004).
Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic parameters in cervical cancer using the Cox regression model
| Parameters | Univariable | Multivariable | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| p-value | HR (95% CI) | p-value | ||
| MiR-101 expression | 0.006 | |||
| Low | 0.004 | 2.820 (1.473–3.925) | ||
| High | - | - | ||
| Tumor size (cm) | - | |||
| ≤4 | 0.192 | - | ||
| >4 | - | - | ||
| Differentiation | - | |||
| Well-moderate | 0.260 | - | ||
| Poor | - | - | ||
| SCC-Ag (μg/L) | 0.746 | |||
| ≤4 | 0.042 | 0.941 (0.452–2.103) | ||
| >4 | - | - | ||
| FIGO stage | 0.003 | |||
| IB1–IIA1 | 0.031 | 2.378 (1.653–3.946) | ||
| IIA2–IIIB | - | - | ||
| Lymph nodes metastasis | 0.015 | |||
| No | 0.042 | 2.023 (1.231–3.521) | ||
| Yes | - | - | ||
CI, confidence interval; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; HR, hazard ratio; SCC-Ag, squamous cell carcinoma antigen.