| Literature DB >> 29844703 |
Liang Wang1, Ming Wang2, Mingyun Zhang1, Xingde Li1, Zhongcheng Zhu1, Haiyan Wang2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was to investigate the expression and clinical significance of RRBP1 in esophageal carcinoma.Entities:
Keywords: RRBP1; esophageal carcinoma; prognosis; survival analysis
Year: 2018 PMID: 29844703 PMCID: PMC5962310 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S158013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Figure 1RRBP1 expression.
Notes: The expression of RRBP was detected in esophageal carcinoma and matched adjacent normal tissues by qRT-PCR (A) and Western blot (B). T, esophageal carcinoma tissue; N, matched adjacent normal esophageal tissue.
Figure 2RRBP1 expression was detected in esophageal carcinoma and matched adjacent normal tissues by immunohistochemical staining.
Notes: (A) Adjacent normal tissues; (B) weak staining of RRBP1 in esophageal carcinoma; (C) moderate staining of RRBP1 in esophageal carcinoma; (D) strong staining of RRBP1 in esophageal carcinoma.
RRBP1 expression in esophageal carcinoma and normal esophageal tissues by immunohistochemical staining
| Types | N | RRBP1
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low-expression (%) | High-expression (%) | |||
| Esophageal carcinoma tissues | 120 | 49 (40.8) | 71 (59.2) | 0.000 |
| Normal esophageal tissues | 120 | 106 (88.3) | 14 (11.7) | |
RRBP1 expression correlation with clinicopathological characteristics in esophageal carcinoma
| Clinicopathological characteristics | N | RRBP1
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low-expression | High-expression | |||
| Age (years) | ||||
| ≤58 | 58 | 27 | 31 | 0.266 |
| >58 | 62 | 22 | 40 | |
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 57 | 24 | 33 | 0.714 |
| Female | 63 | 25 | 38 | |
| History of smoking | ||||
| Negative | 55 | 20 | 35 | 0.853 |
| Positive | 65 | 29 | 36 | |
| Tumor location | ||||
| Upper esophagus | 56 | 27 | 29 | 0.14 |
| Middle-lower esophagus | 64 | 22 | 42 | |
| T stage | ||||
| T1–T2 | 37 | 30 | 7 | 0.000 |
| T3–T4 | 83 | 19 | 64 | |
| Lymph node metastasis | ||||
| Negative | 83 | 42 | 41 | 0.001 |
| Positive | 37 | 7 | 30 | |
| TNM stages | ||||
| I–II | 37 | 30 | 7 | 0.000 |
| III–IV | 83 | 19 | 64 | |
Patient survival: Kaplan–Meier survival analysis
| Variables | N | Survival time (months, 95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| RRBP1 | |||
| Low-expression | 49 | 56 (51–60) | 0.006 |
| High-expression | 71 | 43 (39–48) | |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 57 | 51 (47–56) | 0.323 |
| Female | 63 | 47 (42–52) | |
| Age (years) | |||
| ≤58 | 58 | 50 (45–55) | 0.963 |
| >58 | 62 | 50 (45–54) | |
| History of smoking | |||
| Negative | 55 | 49 (44–55) | 0.845 |
| Positive | 65 | 50 (45–54) | |
| Tumor location | |||
| Upper esophagus | 56 | 50 (45–53) | 0.213 |
| Middle-lower esophagus | 64 | 49 (45–54) | |
| T stage | |||
| T1–T2 | 37 | 58 (53–62) | 0.001 |
| T3–T4 | 83 | 43 (39–48) | |
| Lymph node metastasis | |||
| Negative | 83 | 55 (51–59) | 0.000 |
| Positive | 37 | 36 (31–41) | |
| TNM stages | |||
| I–II | 37 | 58 (53–62) | 0.033 |
| III–IV | 83 | 43 (39–46) |
Figure 3Kaplan–Meier survival analysis.
Notes: Results indicated that RRBP1 expression (A), lymph node metastasis (B), T stage (C), and TNM (D) stage were associated with patients’ prognosis.
Patients’ survival evaluation by multivariate Cox regression analysis
| Variables | Hazard ratio | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| RRBP1 (high-expression vs low-expression) | 2.441 | 1.267–4.702 | 0.008 |
| Gender (male vs female) | 1.329 | 0.736–2.400 | 0.346 |
| Age (≤58 vs >58 years) | 0.994 | 0.516–1.916 | 0.987 |
| History of smoking (positive vs negative) | 0.963 | 0.498–1.862 | 0.912 |
| Tumor location (upper vs middle-lower) | 0.929 | 0.538–1.629 | 0.921 |
| T stage (T3–T4 vs T1–T2) | 3.054 | 1.453–6.421 | 0.003 |
| Lymph node metastasis (positive vs negative) | 4.024 | 2.180–7.424 | 0.000 |
| TNM stage (III–IV vs I–II) | 3.054 | 1.452–6.421 | 0.003 |