| Literature DB >> 29680858 |
Zhuhong Cui1, Mingjun Xie1,2, Zhenru Wu3, Yujun Shi3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The modification of histone acetylation and deacetylation is the most important mechanism of chromatin remodeling. These modifications are a subset of epigenetic alterations which affect tumorigenesis and progression through changes in gene expression and cell growth. Results of histone modification studies prompted us to explore the therapeutic and prognostic significance of histone deacetylase 3 (HDAC3) expression in patients with breast cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining was used to detect HDAC3 expression in a tissue microarray (TMA) that included 145 patients diagnosed with invasive ductal breast carcinoma. IHC scoring was used to evaluate the staining intensity and the proportion of positive cells. RESULTS HDAC3 expression was significantly correlated with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative expression (P=0.036) and progesterone receptor (PR)-negative expression (P=0.024). Additionally, HDAC3 expression was significantly positively correlated with human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) overexpression (P=0.037). Our study also indicated that high expression of HDAC3 was more frequently observed in breast tumors with PT2 classification (74%) versus PT1 (50.0%) and PT3 (71.4%) (P=0.040). Furthermore, HDAC3 was correlated with clinical stage II (P=0.046). Univariate and multivariate survival analyses showed that high expression of HDAC3 was correlated with poor overall survival (OS) (P=0.029 and P=0.033, respectively) in patients without lymph node involvement. CONCLUSIONS High HDAC3 expression is closely correlated with ER-negative expression, PR-negative expression, HER2 overexpression, PT stage, and clinical stage of breast tumors. HDAC3 may be an appropriate prognostic indicator in patients with invasive ductal breast cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29680858 PMCID: PMC5935015 DOI: 10.12659/msm.906576
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Clinicopathological factors of patients with breast cancer.
| Clinicopathologic factor | No. of patients | % |
|---|---|---|
| ALL cases | 143 | 100.0 |
| Age | ||
| <50 | 62 | 43.4 |
| ≥50 | 81 | 56.6 |
| PT status | ||
| PT1 | 32 | 22.5 |
| PT2 | 96 | 67.6 |
| PT3 | 14 | 9.9 |
| Lymph nodes | ||
| Negative | 44 | 33.3 |
| Positive | 88 | 66.7 |
| Histologic grade | ||
| G1 | 5 | 3.5 |
| G2 | 111 | 77.6 |
| G3 | 27 | 18.9 |
| Clinical stages | ||
| I | 10 | 7.1 |
| II | 83 | 59.3 |
| III | 47 | 33.6 |
| ER | ||
| Negative | 54 | 40.6 |
| Positive | 79 | 59.4 |
| PR | ||
| Negative | 51 | 38.1 |
| Positive | 83 | 61.9 |
| HER2 status | ||
| Negative | 92 | 64.8 |
| Positive | 50 | 35.2 |
Figure 1The expression results of HDAC3. The tissue microarray (A, B); (C) was high expression of HDAC3; (D) represented for low expression of HDAC3; (E) the level of HDAC3 expression was significantly higher in breast cancer tissue than that of the adjacent normal tissue. T – tumor; N – normal tissue.
The correlation between HDAC3 expression and clinicopathological parameters.
| Clinicopathological parameter | Cases | HDAC3 high | HDAC3 low | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALL cases | 143 | 97 (67.8) | 46 (32.2) | |
| Age | 0.475 | |||
| <50 | 62 | 40 (64.5) | 22 (35.5) | |
| ≥50 | 81 | 57 (70.4) | 24 (29.6) | |
| PT stage | 0.040 | |||
| PT1 | 32 | 16 (50.0) | 16 (50.0) | |
| PT2 | 96 | 71 (74.0) | 25 (26.0) | |
| PT3 | 14 | 10 (71.4) | 4 (28.6) | |
| Lymph nodes | 0.413 | |||
| Negative | 44 | 34 (77.3) | 10 (22.7) | |
| Positive | 88 | 61 (69.3) | 27 (30.7) | |
| ER | 0.036 | |||
| Negative | 54 | 43 (79.6) | 11 (20.4) | |
| Positive | 79 | 49 (62.0) | 30 (38.0) | |
| PR | 0.024 | |||
| Negative | 51 | 40 (78.4) | 11 (21.6) | |
| Positive | 83 | 49 (59.0) | 34 (41.0) | |
| HER2 status | 0.037 | |||
| Negative | 92 | 57 (62.0) | 35 (38.0) | |
| Positive | 50 | 40 (80.0) | 10 (20.0) | |
| Clinical stage | 0.046 | |||
| I | 10 | 4 (40.0) | 6 (60.0) | |
| II | 83 | 62 (74.7) | 21 (25.3) | |
| III | 47 | 29 (61.7) | 18 (38.3) | |
| Histological grade | 0.103 | |||
| G1 | 5 | 2 (40.0) | 3 (60.0) | |
| G2 | 111 | 80 (73.1) | 31 (27.9) | |
| G3 | 27 | 15 (55.6) | 12 (44.4) |
Chi-square test;
Fisher exact test.
Figure 2Univariate survival analysis. (A) PR positive expression in patients with breast cancer was significantly associated with improved OS (P=0.028); (B) ER positive expression predicted prolonged OS in patients with breast cancer (P=0.006); (C) lymph nodes status had no statistical significance with the OS (P=0.217); (D) tumor size was significantly correlated with OS in our results (P=0.011); (E) there was no significance associated between HDAC3 expression and OS (P=0.653); (F) HDAC3 high expression predicted poor OS in patients with lymph nodes negative status (P=0.029).
Multivariate analysis of overall survival in patients without lymph node involvement.
| Factor | Relevant-factor | OS | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| HDAC3 | High | 10.752 (1.211–95.500) | 0.033 |
| Tumor size | ≤4 cm | 0.163 (0.027–0.995) | 0.049 |
| HER2 | Negative | 2.251 (0.561–9.027) | 0.252 |
| Age | 1.068 (1.007–1.134) | 0.028 |
HR – hazard ratio.
Multivariate analysis of overall survival.
| Factor | Relevant-factor | OS | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| ER status | Negative | 8.538 (2.580–28.251) | <0.001 |
| Tumor size | ≤4 cm | 0.239 (0.061–0.942) | 0.041 |
| Histological grade | 0.036 | ||
| Grade1 | 4.489 (0.346–58.237) | 0.251 | |
| Grade2 | 0.292 (0.075–1.135) | 0.076 | |
| Lymph nodes | Negative | 0.097 (0.023–0.403) | 0.001 |
| Age | 0.994 |
HR – hazard ratio; CI – confidence interval.