| Literature DB >> 29262574 |
Linda Boldrup1, Giuseppe Troiano2, Xiaolian Gu1, Philip Coates3, Robin Fåhraeus1,3,4, Torben Wilms5, Lena Norberg-Spaak5, Lixiao Wang1, Karin Nylander1.
Abstract
Despite intense research, squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue remains a devastating disease with a five-year survival of around 60%. Late detection and recurrence are the main causes for poor survival. The identification of circulating factors for early diagnosis and/or prognosis of cancer is a rapidly evolving field of interest, with the hope of finding stable and reliable markers of clinical significance. The aim of this study was to evaluate circulating miRNAs and proteins as potential factors for distinguishing patients with tongue squamous cell carcinoma from healthy controls. Array-based profiling of 372 miRNAs in plasma samples showed broad variations between different patients and did not show any evidence for their use in diagnosis of tongue cancer. Although one miRNA, miR-150, was significantly down-regulated in plasma from patients compared to controls. Surprisingly, the corresponding tumor tissue showed an up-regulation of miR-150. Among circulating proteins, 23 were identified as potential markers of squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue. These findings imply that circulating proteins are a more promising source of biomarkers for tongue squamous cell carcinomas than circulating miRNAs. The data also highlight that circulating markers are not always directly associated with tumor cell properties.Entities:
Keywords: NT-3; circulating markers; miR-150; miRNA; squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue
Year: 2017 PMID: 29262574 PMCID: PMC5732740 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.21402
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1miRNA levels in patients with tongue tumor compared with healthy controls
Score plot (t1/t2) from PCA modelling based on 152 miRNAs detected in all samples. Each dot represent one patient indicated by the patient ID.
Figure 2miR-150 levels in plasma and tissue
(A) Individual miR-150 levels in plasma from controls and tumors based on Cq values from the miRNA-panel. Normalized Cq = global mean Cq – assay Cq (sample). A higher value thus indicate that miR-150 is more abundant in that particular sample. (B) Fold change in miR-150 level in tongue tumor compared to tumor free tongue tissue from the same patient.
Figure 3Levels of plasma proteins with tongue tumor compared with healthy controls
Score plot (t1/t2) from PCA modelling based on 23 plasma proteins with significantly different levels in patient and control samples.
Figure 4Differentially expressed proteins
Scatter plots of significantly differentially expressed proteins in plasma from patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue compared to healthy controls.
Protein levels in circulation and mRNA expression in tissue
| Protein levels in circulation | mRNA expression in tissue 1 | AUC Circulating proteins | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Confidence interval | |||||||
| p-value | SCCT vs C | P-value | SCCT vs C | AUC | Lower Bound | Upper Bound | |
| NT-3 | 0,002 | Down* | 1,11E-02 | Down* | 0,903 | 0,805 | 1,000 |
| TNFB | 0,001 | Down* | 6,64E-05 | Up* | 0,889 | 0,786 | 0,993 |
| CD5 | 0,008 | Down* | 4,04E-04 | Up* | 0,831 | 0,694 | 0,968 |
| uPA | 0,014 | Down* | 1,21E-10 | Up* | 0,825 | 0,686 | 0,965 |
| IL-1ra | 0,031 | Up* | 3,77E-05 | Down* | 0,806 | 0,670 | 0,942 |
| Flt3L | 0,018 | Down* | 1,04E-02 | Up* | 0,803 | 0,656 | 0,950 |
| DNER | 0,031 | Down* | 1,08E-05 | Down* | 0,781 | 0,631 | 0,931 |
| CXCL1 | 0,047 | Down* | 2,31E-06 | Up* | 0,770 | 0,607 | 0,933 |
| CD6 | 0,018 | Down* | 2,02E-07 | Up* | 0,767 | 0,615 | 0,919 |
| CD40 | 0,047 | Down* | 4,69E-07 | Up* | 0,765 | 0,605 | 0,924 |
| CDH3 | 0,014 | Down* | 1,80E-11 | Up* | 0,737 | 0,570 | 0,904 |
| PECAM-1 | 0,014 | Down* | 1,21E-02 | Up* | 0,731 | 0,560 | 0,902 |
| TIE2 | 0,031 | Down* | 2,22E-02 | Down* | 0,712 | 0,538 | 0,886 |
| FasL | 0,031 | Down* | 7,72E-03 | Up* | 0,709 | 0,538 | 0,881 |
| FR-alpha | 0,047 | Down* | 3,55E-02 | Up* | 0,693 | 0,519 | 0,867 |
| CD69 | 0,044 | Down* | 4,69E-07 | Up* | 0,676 | 0,495 | 0,856 |
| CD244 | 0,012 | Down* | 5,33E-01 | Down | 0,845 | 0,723 | 0,967 |
| TWEAK | 0,010 | Down* | 6,71E-01 | Down | 0,834 | 0,705 | 0,962 |
| IL-12B | 0,026 | Down* | 4,23E-01 | Down | 0,795 | 0,644 | 0,946 |
| EGFR | 0,008 | Down* | 2,58E-01 | Up | 0,756 | 0,593 | 0,920 |
| NTRK3 | 0,016 | Down* | 2,58E-01 | Down | 0,731 | 0,562 | 0,900 |
| ErbB4/HER4 | 0,031 | Down* | 6,71E-01 | Down | 0,690 | 0,515 | 0,864 |
| IL-12 | 0,047 | Down* | 6,47E-01 | Up | 0,676 | 0,487 | 0,865 |
* Significant differential expression
1Data from Boldrup et al. 2017 ([26])
Characteristics and clinical parameters of tongue squamous cell carcinoma patients and controls
| Circulating miRNA | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient ID | Gender | Age | TNM | Survival | Recurrence | Panel | Verification | miRNA tissue | Protein plasma | RNA tissue |
| 35 | F | 24 | T2N0M0 | Dead | Yes | X | X* | |||
| 56 | F | 41 | T2N2bM0 | Dead | Yes | X | X* | |||
| 58 | M | 62 | T1N0M0 | Alive | No | X | X* | |||
| 61 | M | 70 | T4aN0M0 | Alive | No | X | X | X | X | X* |
| 65 | F | 81 | T2N0M0 | Alive | No | X | X | X | X | X* |
| 68 | M | 62 | T2N0M0 | Dead | Yes | X | X | X | X* | |
| 73 | M | 81 | T4aN0M0 | Dead | No | X | X* | |||
| 82 | F | 19 | T4aN0M0 | Dead | Yes | X | X | X | X* | |
| 83 | F | 64 | T1N0M0 | Alive | No | X | X | X | X | |
| 85 | F | 88 | T2N0M0 | Dead | Yes | X | X* | |||
| 98 | M | 31 | T2N0M0 | Alive | No | X | X | X | X | |
| 99 | M | 65 | T4aN2cM0 | Alive | No | X | X | X | ||
| 105 | M | 64 | T1N0M0 | Alive | No | X | X | |||
| 111 | F | 31 | T1N0M0 | Alive | No | X | X | X | X | |
| 119 | M | 67 | T2N0M0 | Alive | No | X | X | X | X | |
| 124 | M | 54 | T4N2bM0 | Dead | Never TF | X | X | X | X | |
| 127 | M | 28 | T1N0M0 | Alive | No | X | X | X | ||
| 131 | F | 74 | T2N0M0 | Alive | No | X | X | X | X | |
| 137 ¤ | F | 71 | T2N0M0 | Alive | No | X | X | |||
| 138 ¤ | M | 50 | T2N1M0 | Alive | No | X | X | |||
| 148 ¤ | M | 81 | T1N0M0 | Alive | No | X | ||||
| 149 ¤ | F | 69 | T1N0M0 | Alive | No | X | ||||
| 150 ¤ | M | 79 | T3N0M0 | Alive | No | X | ||||
| 154 ¤ | F | 42 | T1N1M0 | Alive | No | X | ||||
*Data published in Boldrup et al, 2017 ([26])
¤ Follow up time less than 2 years
| Controls | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| n | Mean age | Age range | |
| Female | 7 | 46,4 | 21- 82 |
| Male | 6 | 44,7 | 23- 59 |
| Female | 7 | 46,4 | 21- 82 |
| Male | 5 | 43,6 | 23- 59 |
| Female | 11 | 55,2 | 39- 82 |
| Male | 8 | 56,8 | 38- 83 |
| Female | 9 | 40,3 | 25- 59 |
| Male | 5 | 39,2 | 27- 57 |
*Data published in Boldrup et al, 2017 ([26])