| Literature DB >> 29151933 |
Beihe Wang1,2, Huyang Xie1,2, Chunguang Ma1,2, Guiming Zhang3, Hualei Gan4,2, Qifeng Wang4,2, Xiaohang Liu5,2, Yiping Zhu1,2, Yao Zhu1,2, Guohai Shi1,2, Hailiang Zhang1,2, Bo Dai1,2, Yijun Shen1,2, Dingwei Ye1,2.
Abstract
Background ARID1B, which exists as a mutually exclusive isoform with ARID1A in the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex, has been recently identified as a major mutant gene in a wide variety of cancers. The present study aimed to determine the association between ARID1B expression and outcomes, as well as the benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with bladder cancer. Methods Tissue microarrays of 143 consecutively recruited patients with bladder cancer from our center were created. Immunohistochemistry was performed to assess the expression of ARID1B and its association with outcomes. Clinicopathological factors were also evaluated. Results ARID1B expression was significantly associated with tumor size (P=0.015), T stage (P=0.027), lymph node status (P=0.030), TNM stage (P=0.040), overall survival (P<0.001), and progression-free survival (P=0.043). Furthermore, high expression of ARID1B was an independent indicator of poor OS (P=0.022). The prognostic model containing ARID1B showed a better predictive accuracy than the bench models. Most importantly, the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy observed in patients with low ARID1B expression was superior to that observed in patients with high ARID1B expression. Conclusions Our study suggests that ARID1B can serve as a prognostic biomarker of bladder urothelial carcinoma. Additionally, ARID1B might be a predictive marker for selecting patients for adjuvant chemotherapy in the high-risk subgroup.Entities:
Keywords: adjuvant chemotherapy.; biomarker; bladder cancer; prognosis
Year: 2017 PMID: 29151933 PMCID: PMC5687163 DOI: 10.7150/jca.19109
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Figure 1ARID1B expression in bladder urothelial carcinoma tissue. Representative ARID1B immunohistochemistry images show high expression levels (upper panel) and low expression levels (lower panel).
The association between ARID1B expression and patients' clinical characteristics
| Characteristic | Patient | ARID1B expression | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NO. | % | Low | High | |||
| Age, years | 0.706 | |||||
| Mean±SD | 60.6±10.0 | 60.3±10.3 | 61.1±9.4 | |||
| Median(range) | 61(33-83) | 61(33-83) | 61.5(35-81) | |||
| Gender | 0.686 | |||||
| Male | 117 | 89.3 | 86 | 31 | ||
| Female | 14 | 10.7 | 11 | 3 | ||
| Tumor size, cm | 0.015 | |||||
| Mean±SD | 3.8±1.9 | 3.6±1.9 | 4.5±1.7 | |||
| Range | 0.7-9.5 | 0.7-9.5 | 1.7-9.0 | |||
| Tumor grade | 0.151 | |||||
| Low | 22 | 16.8 | 19 | 3 | ||
| High | 109 | 83.2 | 78 | 31 | ||
| Adjuvant chemotherapy | 0.267 | |||||
| Positive | 33 | 25.2 | 22 | 11 | ||
| Negative | 98 | 74.8 | 75 | 23 | ||
| Disease pattern | ||||||
| Primary | 89 | 67.9 | 66 | 23 | 0.967 | |
| Relapse | 42 | 32.1 | 31 | 11 | ||
| Number of original tumor | 0.410 | |||||
| Solitary | 81 | 61.8 | 62 | 19 | ||
| Multiple | 50 | 38.2 | 35 | 15 | ||
| T stage | 0.027 | |||||
| 1 | 21 | 16.0 | 18 | 3 | ||
| 2 | 57 | 43.5 | 43 | 14 | ||
| 3 | 38 | 29.0 | 29 | 9 | ||
| 4 | 15 | 11.5 | 7 | 8 | ||
| Lymph nodes status | 0.030 | |||||
| Negative | 102 | 77.9 | 78 | 21 | ||
| Positive | 29 | 22.1 | 19 | 13 | ||
| TNM stage | 0.040 | |||||
| 1 | 21 | 16.0 | 17 | 4 | ||
| 2 | 50 | 38.2 | 40 | 10 | ||
| 3 | 22 | 16.8 | 17 | 5 | ||
| 4 | 38 | 29.0 | 23 | 15 | ||
Figure 2Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) analysis of patients with bladder urothelial carcinoma based on ARID1B expression. Kaplan-Meier analysis of OS (A) and PFS (B).
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis of overall survival.
| Characteristics | Univariate | Multivariate (Full model) | Multivariate (Reduced model) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95%CI | HR | 95%CI | HR | 95%CI | ||||||
| Age | 1.022 | 0.990-1.055 | 0.185 | ||||||||
| Gender | |||||||||||
| Male | Ref. | ||||||||||
| Female | 0.887 | 0.351-2.239 | 0.799 | ||||||||
| Tumor size | 1.027 | 0.890-1.184 | 0.716 | ||||||||
| Tumor grade | |||||||||||
| Low | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | ||||||||
| High | 2.929 | 1.052-8.149 | 0.040 | 3.868 | 1.354-11.055 | 0.012 | 3.817 | 1.340-10.874 | 0.012 | ||
| ARID1B expression | |||||||||||
| Low | Ref. | Ref. | Ref, | ||||||||
| High | 2.813 | 1.594-4.964 | <0.001 | 1.970 | 1.093-3.548 | 0.024 | 1.986 | 1.105-3.571 | 0.022 | ||
| Adjuvant chemotherapy | |||||||||||
| Negative | Ref. | Ref. | - | - | - | ||||||
| Positive | 1.865 | 1.042-3.336 | 0.036 | 0.898 | 0.467-1.729 | 0.749 | - | - | - | ||
| T stage | |||||||||||
| Per increase in stage | 2.197 | 1.558-3.099 | <0.001 | 1.896 | 1.265-2.842 | 0.002 | 1.862 | 1.257-2.758 | 0.002 | ||
| Lymph nodes status | |||||||||||
| Negative | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | ||||||||
| Positive | 2.995 | 1.691-5.305 | <0.001 | 2.110 | 1.076-4.137 | 0.030 | 2.045 | 1.072-3.903 | 0.030 | ||
| TNM stage | |||||||||||
| Per increase in stage | 1.926 | 1.466-2.564 | <0.001 | ||||||||
Comparison of the accuracy of the prognostic models for overall survival
| Model | C-index | 95%CI |
|---|---|---|
| ARID1B | 0.613 | 0.481-0.745 |
| TNM stage | 0.692 | 0.550-0.835 |
| ARID1B+TNM stage | 0.724 | 0.585-0.863 |
| ARID1B+T stage +lymph nodes status +tumor grade | 0.754 | 0.627-0.881 |
Figure 3Relationship between ARID1B expression and benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Kaplan-Meier analysis of OS in all high-risk patients (A), low ARID1B expression patients (B), and high ARID1B expression patients (C).
Figure 4Effect of ARID1B inhibition on cell proliferation, migration and invasion. The knockdown efficiency of ARID1B in T24 bladder cancer cells treated with control siRNA (siNC), ARID1B siRNA 1# (si1#) and siRNA 2# (si2#) (A). Inhibition of ARID1B in T24 cells significantly decreased cell proliferation (B), cell migration (C) and cell invasion (D). *P<0.05, **P<0.01 and ***P<0.001