| Literature DB >> 29486794 |
Rui Zhao1, Yanli Zhang2, Xin Zhang1, Yongmei Yang1, Xin Zheng1, Xiaohui Li1, Yingjie Liu1, Yi Zhang3.
Abstract
Long noncoding RNA HOTTIP plays important roles in the generation and progression of human cancers. Exosomes participate in cellular communication by transmitting moleculars between cells and are regarded as suitable candidates for non-invasive diagnosis. However, the existence of HOTTIP in the circulating exosomes and the potential roles of exosomal HOTTIP in gastric cancer (GC) was poorly understood. This study aims at investigating the clinical roles of exosomal HOTTIP in GC. Serum exosomal HOTTIP from 246 subjects (126 GC patients and 120 healthy people) were detected by reverse transcription real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Our results showed that expression levels of exosomal HOTTIP were typically upregulated in GC than in normal control (P < 0.001). And its expression levels were significantly correlated with invasion depth (P = 0.0298) and TNM stage (P < 0.001). The AUC for exosomal HOTTIP was 0.827, which demonstrated a higher diagnostic capability than CEA, CA 19-9 and CA72-4 (AUC = 0.653, 0.685 and 0.639, respectively) (P < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a correlation between increased exosomal HOTTIP levels and poor overall survival (OS) (logrank P < 0.001). And univariate and multivariate COX analysis revealed exosomal HOTTIP overexpression was an independent prognostic factor in GC patients (P = 0.027). These findings demonstrated that exosomal HOTTIP may be a potential biomarker for GC in diagnosis and prognosis.Entities:
Keywords: Diagnosis; Gastric cancer; HOTTIP; Long noncoding RNA; Prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29486794 PMCID: PMC6389063 DOI: 10.1186/s12943-018-0817-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Cancer ISSN: 1476-4598 Impact factor: 27.401
Correlation between exosomal HOTTIP and clinicopathological parameters of gastric cancer (n = 126)
| Features | Number of cases | Exosomal HOTTIP levels | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | |||
| < 60 | 61 | 2.348 (1.607–3.061) | 0.1340 |
| ≥ 60 | 65 | 2.020 (1.423–2.891) | |
| Gender | |||
| Female | 60 | 2.194 (1.837–3.109) | 0.0919 |
| Male | 66 | 2.166 (1.333–2.837) | |
| Tumor size (cm) | |||
| < 5 | 63 | 1.995 (1.412–2.840) | 0.1051 |
| ≥ 5 | 63 | 2.409 (1.826–3.039) | |
| Pathological differention | |||
| Well + moderate | 57 | 1.997 (1.573–3.164) | 0.8273 |
| Poor | 69 | 2.419 (1.458–2.921) | |
| Invasion depth | |||
| T1 + T2 + T3 | 78 | 2.109 (1.515–2.609) | 0.0298* |
| T4 | 48 | 2.665 (1.535–4.269) | |
| Lymph nodes metastasis | |||
| Negative | 49 | 2.020 (1.508–2.973) | 0.4204 |
| Positive | 77 | 2.348 (1.664–2.944) | |
| TNM stage | |||
| I and II | 55 | 1.624 (1.316–2.066) | < 0.001*** |
| III and IV | 71 | 2.782 (2.219–3.361) | |
Data presented as median (25–75% interquartile range)
* P < 0.05, *** P < 0.001
Fig. 1The ROC curves of biomarkers. a The ROC curve of exosomal HOTTIP. The area under the curve was 0.827. b The ROC curve of CEA. The area under the curve was 0.653. c The ROC curve of CA 19–9. The area under the curve was 0.685. d The ROC curve of CA 72–4. The area under the curve was 0.639. e The ROC curve of combine CEA, CA 19–9 and CA 72–4. The area under the curve was 0.723. f The ROC curve of combine CEA, CA 19–9, CA 72–4 and exosomal HOTTIP. The area under the curve was 0.870. P < 0.001
Fig. 2Association between tumor markers and overall survival in gastric cancer. Kaplan–Meier curves of gastric cancer patients according to serum levels of a CEA, b CA 19–9, c CA 72–4 and d exosomal HOTTIP, and e levels of HOTTIP in tissue