| Literature DB >> 29262626 |
Fiebo J C Ten Kate1, Lucia Suzuki1, Lambert C J Dorssers1, Winand N M Dinjens1, David T W Jones2, Daan Nieboer3, Michael Doukas1, J Jan B Van Lanschot4, Bas P L Wijnhoven4, Leendert H J Looijenga1, Katharina Biermann1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: TP53 mutations are considered to be the driving factor in the initiation of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, the impact of this gene and its encoded protein as a prognostic marker has not been definitely established yet.Entities:
Keywords: DNA methylation; esophageal adenocarcinoma; mutational profile; p53; survival
Year: 2017 PMID: 29262626 PMCID: PMC5732792 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.22021
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Clinico-pathological characteristics for the 204 included patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma
| All patients n=204 | p53 Loss (0%) n=54 | p53 Heterogeneous (1-60%) n=36 | p53 Overexpression (61-100%) n=114 | p-value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | N | % | N | % | ||
| Age at surgery | |||||||||
| Median | 64.0 | 63.0 | 68.5 | 64.0 | 0.462 | ||||
| Range (IQR) | 55.3-72.0 | 55.0-72.0 | 56.3-74.0 | 55.0-72.0 | |||||
| Sex | |||||||||
| Male | 174 | 85.3 | 51 | 25.0 | 29 | 14.2 | 95 | 46.6 | 0.337 |
| Female | 30 | 14.7 | 5 | 2.5 | 7 | 3.4 | 17 | 8.3 | |
| Siewert classification | |||||||||
| Type 1 | 75 | 36.8 | 23 | 11.3 | 11 | 5.4 | 41 | 21.1 | 0.576 |
| Type 2 | 129 | 63.2 | 33 | 16.2 | 25 | 12.3 | 71 | 34.8 | |
| Pathologic T-stage | |||||||||
| pT2 | 27 | 13.2 | 9 | 4.4 | 3 | 1.5 | 16 | 7.8 | 0.556 |
| pT3 or pT4 | 177 | 86.8 | 47 | 23.0 | 33 | 16.2 | 96 | 47.1 | |
| Pathologic N-stage | |||||||||
| pN0 | 42 | 20.6 | 16 | 7.8 | 5 | 2.5 | 22 | 10.8 | 0.207 |
| pN1 or more | 162 | 79.4 | 40 | 19.6 | 31 | 15.2 | 90 | 44.1 | |
| Histology grade | |||||||||
| Well | 5 | 2.5 | 3 | 1.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.498 |
| Moderate | 80 | 39.2 | 22 | 10.8 | 15 | 7.4 | 43 | 21.1 | |
| Poor | 119 | 58.3 | 31 | 15.2 | 20 | 9.8 | 68 | 33.3 | |
| Resection margin status | |||||||||
| pR0 | 128 | 62.7 | 33 | 16.2 | 22 | 10.8 | 73 | 35.8 | 0.714 |
| pR1 | 76 | 37.3 | 23 | 11.3 | 14 | 6.9 | 39 | 19.1 | |
| Alive after 60 months | |||||||||
| Yes | 34 | 160.7 | 10 | 4.9 | 8 | 3.9 | 16 | 7.8 | 0.518 |
| No | 170 | 83.3 | 46 | 22.5 | 28 | 13.7 | 96 | 47.1 | |
Figure 1Examples of p53 expression in esophageal adenocarcinoma
(A) overexpression (61-100% positive tumor cells) (B) heterogeneous expression (1-60% positive tumor cells) and (C) loss of expression (0% positive tumor cells). Magnification 1:100.
Figure 2Kaplan-Meier curve for disease free survival in chemoradiotherapy-naive patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma
Expression pattern of p53 is subdivided into three groups: 0% of the tumor cells positive (loss of expression), 1-60% of the tumor cells positive (heterogeneous expression) and 61-100% of the tumor cells positive (overexpression). The dotted line indicates the median survival for each of the three groups. Number of patients at risk is indicated for each of the three groups at the bottom of the figure.
Multivariable Cox regression analysis for disease free survival and overall survival in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma
| Multivariable Cox regression analysis | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disease free survival | Overall survival | |||||
| HR | 95% CI | p-value | HR | 95% CI | p-value | |
| NA | NA | NA | 1.026 | 1.010-1.042 | 0.001 | |
| 2.152 | 1.156-4.005 | 0.016 | 2.010 | 1.168-3.459 | 0.012 | |
| 3.445 | 1.981-5.990 | <0.001 | 2.434 | 1.560-3.796 | <0.001 | |
| 1.467 | 1.016-2.119 | 0.041 | 1.551 | 1.112-2.165 | 0.010 | |
| 1721 | 1.192-2.484 | 0.004 | 1.716 | 1.230-2.393 | 0.001 | |
| 2.754 | 1.547-4.903 1.571-4.320 | 0.001* | 2.174 | 1.333-3.546 | 0.003* | |
| 2.605 | 1.989 | 1.288-3.071 | ||||
HR=Hazard Ratio, CI=Confidence Interval, NA = not available, excluding patients who died within one month after surgery. P53 expression, based on immunohistochemical expression, was classified as loss of expression (0% of the tumor cells positive), heterogeneous expression (1-60% of the tumor cells positive) and overexpression (61-100% of the tumor cells positive). *global p-value
Figure 3Molecular profile of esophageal adenocarcinoma
Mutational profile, as detected by targeted sequencing in 33 cases is categorized by p53 expression pattern. The order of samples is determined by the percentage of positive p53 tumor cells. The exact mutations found are displayed in Supplementary Table 4, ordered by case number. The CpG methylation-derived information (copy numbers, hypo-methylation status and relative high frequency breaks are summarized here. Further details are provided in the Supplementary Figures 2 and 3.
Figure 4Unsupervised clustering of CpG methylation of 16 esophageal adenocarcinomas, using top 10,454 differential probes, in which every row is a methylation probe and every column is a sample
The corresponding violin plots for all methylation probes as well as top 10,454 differential probes are depicted in Supplementary Figure 3. At the top of the image, p53 expression and TP53 mutational status are indicated for each sample. In the bottom of the image, the deviation of the median number of intra-chromosomal breaks (median number of intra-chromosomal breaks are calculated, samples with less breaks are depicted in green, and samples with more breaks depicted in red, numbers indicate deviation from median number of intra-chromosomal breaks) as well as the two samples with MDM2 and MDM4-amplification are indicated. Five samples with an altered p53 pathway (either TP53 mutations or MDM2/4 amplifications) show extensive intra-chromosomal breaks (sample 31, 35, 14, 22 and 21), and only one sample without alteration of the p53 pathway (sample 18) showed extensive intra-chromosomal breaks. However none of the six samples (sample number 13, 23, 10, 1, 6 and 17) with a missense mutation showed an increase of intra-chromosomal breaks. Increased number of intra-chromosomal breaks correlates to the clustered hypomethylated CpG-sites.