| Literature DB >> 29422956 |
Wei Wang1,2,3, Zhong Chen3, Jiejie Jin1,2, Ziwen Long1,2, Xiaowen Liu1,2, Hong Cai1,2, Ye Zhou1,2, Hua Huang1,2, Yanong Wang1,2.
Abstract
MDM2 binding protein (MTBP) has been revealed to be involved in cancer progression and metastasis. However, the role and clinical implication of MTBP expression in gastric cancer (GC) remains poorly understood. The present study aimed to investigate the clinicopathological significance of MTBP and the prognostic determinant in GC. The expression level of MTBP was examined in cancerous and matched adjacent noncancerous gastric mucosa tissues by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction and western blotting. MTBP expression levels were evaluated by immunohistochemical analysis of tissue microarrays for 352 patients, and association between the expression levels and prognosis in patients with GC were investigated. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox's regression models were used to investigate the associations between MTBP expression and prognosis of GC patients. The results of the present study revealed decreased MTBP mRNA (P=0.005) and protein (P=0.001) expression levels in tumor tissue compared with in matched adjacent normal tissue mucosa. MTBP expression level in GC was associated with gender (P=0.026), lymph node metastasis (P<0.001), distant metastasis (P=0.026) and pathological tumor-node-metastasis stage (P<0.001). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated that patients with high MTBP expression levels exhibited longer survival times compared with patients with low MTBP expression levels. The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that MTBP was independently associated with the presence of lymph node [OR, 0.282; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.161-0.494; P<0.001] and distant metastasis (OR, 0.365; 95% CI, 0.138-0.965; P=0.042). Furthermore, the multivariate Cox analysis revealed that low MTBP expression level was significantly associated with longer overall survival time and was recognized as an independent prognostic factor of patient's survival. MTBP expression level was significantly associated with progression and metastasis in GC, suggesting that MTBP may be used as a predictive marker for patient prognosis of GC.Entities:
Keywords: MDM2 binding protein; gastric cancer; immunohistochemistry; prognosis
Year: 2017 PMID: 29422956 PMCID: PMC5770606 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2017.7031
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncol Lett ISSN: 1792-1074 Impact factor: 2.967
Association between MTBP expression levels and clinicopathological characteristics of gastric cancer.
| MTBP expression level, n (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Patients, n (%) | Low | High | P-value |
| All cases | 352 (100) | 271 (77.0) | 81 (23.0) | |
| Gender | 0.026 | |||
| Male | 275 (78.1) | 219 (79.6) | 56 (20.4) | |
| Female | 77 (21.9) | 52 (67.5) | 25 (32.5) | |
| Age, years | 0.234 | |||
| ≤60 | 155 (44.0) | 124 (80.0) | 31 (20.0) | |
| >60 | 197 (56.0) | 147 (74.6) | 50 (25.4) | |
| Tumor size, cm | 0.077 | |||
| <5 | 187 (53.1) | 137 (73.3) | 50 (26.7) | |
| ≥5 | 165 (46.9) | 134 (81.2) | 31 (18.8) | |
| Borrmann type | 0.075 | |||
| I | 20 (5.70) | 14 (70.0) | 6 (30.0) | |
| II | 17 (4.80) | 9 (52.9) | 8 (47.1) | |
| III | 302 (85.8) | 237 (78.5) | 65 (21.5) | |
| IV | 13 (3.70) | 11 (84.6) | 2 (15.4) | |
| Depth of invasion | 0.171 | |||
| T1 | 12 (3.40) | 8 (66.7) | 4 (33.3) | |
| T2 | 16 (4.50) | 10 (62.5) | 6 (37.5) | |
| T3 | 27 (7.70) | 18 (66.7) | 9 (33.3) | |
| T4 | 297 (84.4) | 235 (79.1) | 62 (20.9) | |
| Lymph node metastasis | <0.001 | |||
| N0 | 79 (22.4) | 45 (57.0) | 34 (43.0) | |
| N1 | 69 (19.6) | 54 (78.3) | 15 (21.7) | |
| N2 | 65 (18.5) | 55 (84.6) | 10 (15.4) | |
| N3 | 139 (39.5) | 117 (84.2) | 22 (15.8) | |
| Distant metastasis | 0.026 | |||
| M0 | 304 (86.4) | 228 (75.0) | 76 (25.0) | |
| M1 | 48 (13.6) | 43 (89.6) | 5 (10.4) | |
| pTNM stage | <0.001 | |||
| I | 11 (3.10) | 7 (63.6) | 4 (36.4) | |
| II | 72 (20.5) | 38 (52.8) | 34 (47.2) | |
| III | 221 (62.8) | 183 (82.8) | 38 (17.2) | |
| IV | 48 (13.6) | 43 (89.6) | 5 (10.4) | |
| Histological grade | 0.441 | |||
| Well | 18 (5.10) | 12 (66.7) | 6 (33.3) | |
| Moderately | 159 (45.2) | 126 (79.2) | 33 (20.8) | |
| Poorly | 175 (49.7) | 133 (76.0) | 42 (24.0) | |
| Preoperative CEA | 0.113 | |||
| Elevated | 84 (24.1) | 70 (83.3) | 14 (16.7) | |
| Normal | 268 (75.9) | 201 (75.0) | 67 (25.0) | |
pTNM, pathological tumor-node-metastasis; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; MTBP, MDM2 binding protein.
Figure 1.Expression levels of MTBP in gastric tumor and adjacent normal tissues. (A) The average relative mRNA expression levels of MTBP in GC tumor tissues compared with in the paired adjacent normal tissues (P<0.0001). (B) The fold change of MTBP expression levels in gastric tumor tissues compared with in paired adjacent normal tissues evaluated by reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction and normalized to GAPDH. (C) Western blotting analysis of MTBP expressed levels in 6 paired representative gastric tumor tissues and adjacent normal tissues. (D) The relative expression levels of MTBP in gastric tumor and adjacent normal tissues. (E) Percentages of samples displaying low or high expression levels of MTBP relative to tumor tissues and adjacent normal tissues. T, tumor tissues; N, normal tissues; GC, gastric cancer; MTBP, MDM2 binding protein.
Figure 2.Representative images of MTBP immunohistochemical staining in gastric tumor tissues and adjacent normal tissues. (A) High expression levels of MTBP in normal mucosa. (B) No cytoplasmic staining in tumor tissue. (C) Weak cytoplasmic staining with positive nuclear MTBP staining in tumor tissue. (D) Low expression level of MTBP in normal mucosa. (E) Moderate cytoplasmic staining with nuclear MTBP staining in tumor tissue. (F) Strong cytoplasmic staining with absence of nuclear staining (original magnification, ×200). MTBP, MDM2 binding protein.
Immunohistochemical evaluation of nuclear and cytoplasmic staining.
| Staining | Number | Intensity |
|---|---|---|
| Cytoplasmic | ||
| 0 | 122 | No staining |
| 1 | 149 | Weak staining |
| 2 | 47 | Moderate staining |
| 3 | 34 | Strong staining |
| Nuclear | ||
| Positive | 81 | Nuclear staining |
| Negative | 271 | No nuclear staining |
| Combined scoring | ||
| Low expression | 271 | 0/1 cytoplasmic staining + no nuclear staining |
| High expression | 81 | 2/3 cytoplasmic staining + nuclear positivity |
Figure 3.Low expression levels of MTBP demonstrated higher (A) lymph node metastases and (B) distant metastasis rates. MTBP, MDM2 binding protein. N0, without lymph node metastasis; >N0, with lymph node metastases; M0, without distant metastasis; M1, with distant metastasis.
Associations of MTBP expression level with distant and lymph node metastasis.
| Variable | B | SE | OR | 95% CI | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distant metastasis, n=48 | |||||
| Age, years (≤60 vs. >60) | 0.025 | 0.320 | 1.025 | 0.547–1.921 | 0.938 |
| Tumor size (<5 vs. ≥5 cm) | 0.664 | 0.323 | 1.942 | 1.031–3.659 | 0.040 |
| Differentiation (well/moderately vs. poorly) | −0.402 | 0.323 | 0.669 | 0.355–1.259 | 0.213 |
| Preoperative CEA (elevated vs. normal) | 0.051 | 0.362 | 1.052 | 0.512–2.163 | 0.890 |
| MTBP expression (high vs. low) | −1.007 | 0.496 | 0.365 | 0.138–0.965 | 0.042 |
| Lymph node metastasis, n=273 | |||||
| Age, years (≤60 vs. >60) | −0.369 | 0.276 | 0.691 | 0.402–1.188 | 0.182 |
| Tumor size (<5 vs. ≥5 cm) | 0.500 | 0.275 | 1.649 | 0.962–2.826 | 0.690 |
| Differentiation (well/moderately vs. poorly)[ | −0.344 | 0.271 | 0.709 | 0.417–1.206 | 0.204 |
| Preoperative CEA (elevated vs. normal) | −0.112 | 0.314 | 0.894 | 0.483–1.653 | 0.720 |
| MTBP expression (high vs. low) | −1.265 | 0.285 | 0.282 | 0.161–0.494 | <0.001 |
According to the Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma. CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; MTBP, MDM2 binding protein; B, the parameter estimator of association coefficient; SE, standard error of B; OR, odds ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval.
Figure 4.Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival in patients with gastric cancer with low and high expression levels of MTBP. MTBP, MDM2 binding protein.
Univariate and multivariate survival analyses in patients with gastric cancer.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent factors | HR | 95% CI | P-value | HR | 95% CI | P-value |
| Gender (male vs. female) | 1.099 | 0.629–1.619 | 0.970 | |||
| Age, years (≤60 vs. >60) | 0.992 | 0.669–1.473 | 0.969 | |||
| Tumor size, cm (<5 vs. ≥5) | 0.520 | 0.349–0.777 | 0.001 | 0.582 | 0.389–0.871 | 0.008 |
| Borrmann type (I/II vs. III/IV) | 1.293 | 0.652–2.565 | 0.462 | |||
| pTNM stage (I/II vs. III/IV) | 3.233 | 1.682–6.214 | <0.001 | 2.720 | 1.395–5.305 | 0.003 |
| Differentiation (well/moderate vs. poor)[ | 1.444 | 0.972–2.145 | 0.069 | |||
| Preoperative CEA (elevated vs. normal) | 1.719 | 1.007–2.934 | 0.047 | 1.290 | 0.749–2.222 | 0.359 |
| MTBP expression level High vs. low | 0.602 | 0.397–0.913 | 0.017 | 0.633 | 0.417–0.961 | 0.032 |
According to the Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma. pTNM, pathological tumor-node-metastasis; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; MTBP, MDM2 binding protein; HR, hazard ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval.