| Literature DB >> 29132333 |
Paulo Roberto Stevanato Filho1,2, Samuel Aguiar Júnior3, Maria Dirlei Begnami4, Hellen Kuasne5,6, Ranyell Matheus Spencer3, Wilson Toshihiko Nakagawa3, Tiago Santoro Bezerra3, Bruna Catin Kupper3, Renata Maymi Takahashi3, Mateus Barros Filho5, Silvia Regina Rogatto5,6, Ademar Lopes3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among the sex hormones, oestrogen may play a role in colorectal cancer, particularly in conjunction with oestrogen receptor-β (ERβ). The expression of ERβ isoform variants and their correlations with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) syndrome and sporadic colorectal carcinomas are poorly described.Entities:
Keywords: Colorectal cancer; ERβ isoforms; Familial adenomatous polyposis; Hormone receptors; Oestrogen receptor
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29132333 PMCID: PMC5683223 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-017-3688-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Sample distribution according to the demographic and clinical variables of individuals with cancer
| Variable | Category | Frequency (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 53 (54.1) |
| Female | 45 (45.9) | |
| Age (years) | Variation | 41–88 |
| Median | 58.6 | |
| Mean (Standard Deviation) | 65.45 (10.2) | |
| Age range (years) | ≤65 | 52 (53.1) |
| >65 | 46 (46.9) | |
| Location | Proximal | 30 (30.6) |
| Distal | 68 (69.4) | |
| Topography | Colon | 82 (83.7) |
| Upper rectal | 16 (16.3) | |
| Follow-up time (months) | Variation (months) | 1.7–188.7 |
| Median | 58.6 | |
| Mean (Standard Deviation) | 70.15 (42.3) | |
| Status | Living without disease | 78 (79.5) |
| Living with disease | 2 (2.04) | |
| Death from other causes | 3 (3.06) | |
| Death from disease | 15 (15.3) | |
| Recurrence | No recurrence | 77 (78.5) |
| Local | 1 (1.02) | |
| Liver | 13 (13.2) | |
| Lung | 4 (4.08) | |
| Peritoneum | 3 (3.0) | |
| T Stage | T1/T2 | 48 (48.9) |
| T3/T4 | 50 (51.1) | |
| N Stage | N0 | 58 (59.2) |
| N+ | 40 (40.8) | |
| Overall TNM stage | S I | 39 (39.8) |
| S II | 18 (18.4) | |
| S III | 27 (27.6) | |
| S IV | 14 (14.3) | |
| Histological grade | Well differentiated (G1) | 08 (8.2) |
| Moderately differentiated (G2) | 84 (85.7) | |
| Poorly differentiated (G3) | 06 (6.3) | |
| Blood embolization | No | 95 (96.9) |
| Yes | 3 (3.1) | |
| Perineural invasion | No | 89 (90.8) |
| Yes | 9 (9.20) | |
| Lymphatic embolization | No | 85 (86.7) |
| Yes | 13 (13.3) | |
| Adjuvant chemotherapy | No | 52 (53.7) |
| Yes | 46 (46.7) | |
| Adjuvant CT scheme | No chemotherapy treatment | 52 (53.7) |
| FOLFOX | 28 (28.5) | |
| 5 FU + LV | 07 (7.14) | |
| FOLFOX/FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab | 05 (5.10) | |
| FOLFIRI + Cetuximab | 1 (1.02) | |
| XELODA/XELOX | 5 (5.10) |
CT chemotherapy, 5-FU + LV 5-Fluorouracil + Leucovorin (folinic acid), FOLFOX Leucovorin + Oxaliplatin + Oxaliplatin, FOLFIRI Fluorouracil + Leucovorin + Irinotecan, XELODA/XELOX Capecitabine combined with Oxaliplatin
Sequences and properties of the primers used in the study
| Gene | Primer 5′ - 3′ | Amplicon | Transcript variants | Encoded Isoforms |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| F:AATTGACCACCCCGGCAAG | 64 | a, b, d, f, k and l |
|
|
| R: TTTCCCCTCATCCCTGTCCA | |||
|
| F:GGCTAACCTCCTGATGCTCC | 57 | a and g |
|
|
| R: TCCATGCCCTTGTTACTCGC | |||
|
| F:TCTCCTCCCAGCAGCAATCC | 154 | b, l and k |
|
|
| R:GGTCACTGCTCCATCGTTGC | |||
|
| F:CACAGACACCACCTCCTTCC | 73 | ||
| R:CCATTCGTGAGTCCTCCCAG | ||||
|
| F:ACCTGTCTTCATCCTCCCCT | 71 | ||
| R:GCTGCTTTTCGCCTGCATC | ||||
|
| F:TTACCTGCTTTCCCGCTGAG | 114 | ||
| R:GGCTAGGAAGCTACAGCACC |
bp: base pairs aThis primer sequence was obtained from ref. [22] F: forward; R: reverse
Fig. 1Schematic representation of the transcript variants and isoforms of ESR2 gene evaluated in this study. a Three primer pairs were used to amplify the ESR2 variants. Primer pair 1, in bold, amplifies five ESR2 transcript variants (a, b, d, f, k and l), representing the isoforms ERβ1, ERβ2 and ERβ4. Primer pair 2, highlighted in dark grey, amplifies the transcript variants a and g (ERβ1 and ERβ5). Primer pair 3, highlighted in light grey, amplifies the variants b, l and k (ERβ2). b The ESR2 transcript variants are indicated by letters, followed by the correspondent isoforms. Figure modified from UCSC Genome Browser (https://genome.ucsc.edu). The nomenclature was defined according to NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore)
Fig. 2a ESR2 expression levels in sporadic CRC, sporadic polyps and FAP polyps in comparison to normal tissues according to the type of tissue (fresh frozen tissues: superior graphics or FFPE: inferior graphics). b Comparison of ESR2 expression levels in normal and sporadic colorectal cancer of TCGA database (log2 + 1 from RNA sequencing read per million values). c The samples were grouped into two T stages using the TNM classification (T1/T2 vs T3/T4) with relative expression of the ESR2 isoforms. NS = Sporadic normal mucosa; SP = Sporadic polyps; ST = Sporadic tumour; NFAP = Normal mucosa FAP; PFAP = Polyp FAP; TCGA = The Cancer Genome Atlas level 3) *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001; (Tukey’s Multiple Comparison Test and Student’s t-test)
Probability of overall survival and disease-free survival at 5 and 10 years according to the demographic, clinical and pathological variables of sporadic colorectal cancer patients
| Variable | Overall survival (%) |
| Disease-free survival (%) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5-y | 10-y | – | 5-y | 10-y | ||
| Survival | 83.9 | 77.1 | – | 77.4 | 77.4 | – |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 88.3 | 79.5 | 0.220 | 77.6 | 77.6 | 0.952 |
| Female | 78.3 | 71.8 | 77.3 | 77.3 | ||
| Age group (years) | ||||||
| < 65 | 79.1 | 72.5 | 0.248 | 68.8 | 68.8 |
|
| ≥ 65 | 88.9 | 82.1 | 86.7 | 86.7 | ||
| Topography | ||||||
| Colon | 83.3 | 74.4 | 0.430 | 75.7 | 75.7 | 0.403 |
| Upper rectal | 86.7 | 86.7 | 86.7 | 86.7 | ||
| CEA | ||||||
| Normal (<5.0) | 90.0 | 84.0 |
| 83.9 | 83.9 |
|
| Increased (>5.0) | 66.8 | 58.5 | 59.4 | 59.4 | ||
| T stage | ||||||
| T1-T2 | 95.7 | 95.7 |
| 97.9 | 97.9 |
|
| T3-T4 | 72.1 | 40.1 | 56.7 | 56.7 | ||
| N stage | ||||||
| N0 | 94.9 | 94.9 |
| 91.2 | 91.2 |
|
| N+ | 66.6 | 35.5 | 55.8 | 55.8 | ||
| M stage | ||||||
| M0 | 90.1 | 90.1 |
| 86.1 | 86.1 |
|
| M+ | 49.0 | 0 | 28.6 | 28.6 | ||
| Histological grade | ||||||
| Well differentiated | 87.5 | 12.5 | 0.126 | 87.5 | 87.5 |
|
| Moderately differentiated | 53.3 | 0 | 78.8 | 78.2 | ||
| Poorly differentiated | 0 | 0 | 40.0 | 40.0 | ||
| Blood embolization | ||||||
| No | 85.6 | 78.6 |
| 80.0 | 80.0 |
|
| Yes | 33.3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Lymphatic embolization | ||||||
| No | 85.1 | 60.3 | 0.151 | 80.3 | 80.3 | 0.079 |
| Yes | 76.9 | 0 | 58.3 | 58.3 | ||
| Perineural invasion | ||||||
| No | 84.6 | 84.6 |
| 79.8 | 79.8 | 0.108 |
| Yes | 0 | 0 | 55.6 | 55.6 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Wild | 79.8 | 79.8 | 0.310 | 74.2 | 74.2 | 0.710 |
| Mutated | 61.9 | 61.9 | 66.7 | 66.7 | ||
|
| ||||||
| > −7.2 | – | – | 76.4 | 76.4 | 0.301 | |
| ≤ −7.2 | – | – | 100 | 100 | ||
| > −3.2 | 87.5 | 87.5 | 0.361 | – | – | |
| ≤ −3.2 | 82.7 | 73.5 | – | – | ||
|
| ||||||
| > −4.5 | – | – | 62.5 | 62.5 |
| |
| ≤ −4.5 | – | – | 85.3 | 85.3 | ||
| > −7.6 | 81.6 | 81.6 | 0.118 | – | – | |
| ≤ −7.6 | 100 | 100 | – | – | ||
|
| ||||||
| > −4.5 | – | – | 76.8 | 76.8 | 0.609 | |
| ≤ −4.5 | – | – | 85.7 | 85.7 | ||
| > −3.2 | 82.4 | 75.2 | 0.187 | – | – | |
| ≤ −3.2 | 100 | 100 | – | – | ||
p-value obtained by the log-rank test. Statistically significant p values (p < 0.05) are shown in bold type. *The cut-off for relative gene expression (log2) was determined using the log-rank test (maximally selected rank statistics in R) [24]
Multivariate analysis of the prognostic factors of disease-free survival in colorectal cancer patients
| Variable | N | HR |
| 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T stage (TNM) | ||||
| T1-T2 | 47 | 1.0 |
| 2.88–170.7 |
| T3-T4 | 51 | 22.1 | ||
| N stage (TNM) | ||||
| N0 | 59 | 1.0 |
| 1.09–8.41 |
| N+ | 39 | 3.03 | ||
|
| ||||
| ≤ −4.5 | 65 | 1.0 |
| 1.69–9.84 |
| > −4.5 | 33 | 4.08 | ||
*The cutoff for relative gene expression (log2) was determined using the log-rank test (maximally selected rank statistics in R) [24]