| Literature DB >> 30390420 |
Yan Chen1, Zhixian Hong2, Shanshan Lu1, Ning Zhang3, Guanghua Rong1, Xiujuan Chang1, Ze Liu1, Wenlin Bai1, Zheng Dong1, Xudong Gao1, Zhen Zeng1, Yinying Lu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The downregulation of tropomyosin 1 (TPM1) has been observed in various tumors, but few studies have focused on the clinical significance of TPM1 in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). In the present study, we investigated the prognostic significance of TPM1 in ICC. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 124 patients with ICC were enrolled in this study. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-RCR) was performed to examine the mRNA levels of TPM1 in ICC tissue samples and adjacent noncancerous tissue specimens, while the protein level of TPM1 in tissue specimens were investigated using immunohistochemistry assay. The correlation of TPM1 with clinicopathological features of ICC was analyzed by chi-square test. Survival analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the prognostic value of TPM1 in patients with ICC. RESULTS TPM1 expression was significantly downregulated in ICC tissues at mRNA and protein levels (P<0.001 for both). Downregulated TPM1 mRNA was negatively associated with tumor size (P=0.001) and TNM stage (P=0.007). Moreover, survival analysis demonstrated that patients with low TPM1 expression had a shorter overall survival (OS) (P<0.001) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) (P<0.001) than those with high TPM1 expression. Additionally, multivariate analysis showed that TPM1 could be a potential biomarker for predicting the recurrence (HR=4.632, 95% CI: 3.832-10.368, P<0.001) and survival outcome (HR=5.320, 95% CI: 2.627-11.776, P<0.001) of ICC. CONCLUSIONS TPM1 may serve as a useful biomarker for predicting tumor recurrence and prognosis in patients with ICC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30390420 PMCID: PMC6231322 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.907340
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
The relationship between TPM1 expression and the clinicopathological characteristics in ICC.
| Variables | N | TPM1 mRNA level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Low | |||
| Age | 0.472 | |||
| ≥60 | 63 | 35 | 28 | |
| <60 | 61 | 29 | 32 | |
| Gender | 0.281 | |||
| Male | 63 | 36 | 27 | |
| Female | 61 | 28 | 33 | |
| Tumor size | 0.001 | |||
| ≥3 cm | 81 | 33 | 48 | |
| <3cm | 43 | 31 | 12 | |
| Lymph node metastasis | 0.063 | |||
| Absent | 78 | 35 | 43 | |
| Present | 46 | 29 | 17 | |
| Differentiation | 0.470 | |||
| Well or moderate | 72 | 35 | 37 | |
| Poor | 52 | 29 | 23 | |
| TNM stage | 0.007 | |||
| III, IV | 71 | 29 | 42 | |
| I, II | 53 | 35 | 18 | |
Figure 1Relative TPM1 mRNA expression levels detected by qRT-PCR. TPM1 expression was significantly decreased in ICC tissue samples compared to that in adjacent noncancerous tissue specimens (P<0.001).
Different TPM1 expression in ICC tissues and normal tissues.
| Tissue | No. | Expression | Positive rate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | ||||
| ICC tissues | 124 | 20 | 104 | 16.1% | P<0.001 |
| Adjacent normal tissues | 124 | 98 | 26 | 79.0% | |
Figure 2The expression of TPM1 protein in ICC tissue specimens detected using IHC. (A) The expression of TPM1 in ICC tissues. (B) The expression of TPM1 in adjacent noncancerous tissues. The expression of TPM1 was lower in ICC tissues than in adjacent normal tissues. Arrows represent the signal of TPM1.
Figure 3Survival analysis of TPM1 in ICC. (A) Patients with high TPM1 levels had better OS than those with low TPM1 expression (P<0.001). (B) Patients with high TPM1 expression had longer RFS than those with low TPM1 expression (P<0.001).
Univariate and multivariate analysis of variables associated with OS in patients with ICC.
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| Age | 1.195 (0.638–2.237) | 0.264 | – | – |
| Gender | 1.921 (1.019–3.621) | 0.084 | – | – |
| Tumor size | 2.613 (1.932–3.438) | 0.013 | – | – |
| TNM stage | 1.936 (0.841–4.754) | 0.008 | 1.521 (1.271–2.005) | 0.012 |
| Lymph node metastasis | 1.582 (1.020–3.533) | 0.048 | 1.211 (0.963–2.163) | 0.036 |
| Differentiation | 1.544 (1.288–4.360) | 0.036 | – | – |
| 5.153 (2.544–10.436) | <0.001 | 5.320 (2.627–11.776) | <0.001 | |
Univariate and multivariate analysis of variables associated with recurrence in patients with ICC.
| Variables | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| Age | 1.266 (0.676–2.372) | 0.464 | – | – |
| Gender | 1.926 (1.021–3.632) | 0.053 | – | – |
| Tumor size | 1.919 (1.488–2.729) | 0.012 | – | – |
| TNM stage | 2.636 (1.841–5.754) | 0.003 | 1.963 (1.265–4.327) | 0.024 |
| Lymph node metastasis | 2.701 (2.020–4.344) | 0.098 | – | – |
| Differentiation | 1.570 (1.296–3.098) | 0.056 | – | – |
| 3.653 (2.252–8.746) | <0.001 | 4.632 (3.832–10.368) | <0.001 | |
Figure 4Subgroup survival analysis of TPM1. (A, B) Patients with high TPM1 expression had a better OS, not only in the size ≥3 cm group (P<0.001), but also in the size <3 cm group (P=0.011). (C, D) Patients with high TPM1 expression had a better OS in stages III–IV (P<0.001), but not in stages I–II (P=0.103).