| Literature DB >> 30519280 |
Laura Bognár1, Ivett Hegedűs2, Szabolcs Bellyei3, Éva Pozsgai4, László Zoltán3, Katalin Gombos5, Örs Péter Horváth1, András Vereczkei1, András Papp1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to evaluate whether HPV infection has a prognostic role in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent oncological treatment and also to compare the heat shock proteins (Hsp) 90, 27 and 16.2 and growth hormone-releasing hormone receptor (GHRH-R) expression patterns of the pre-treatment tumor biopsies with the HPV status and with the oncological response.Entities:
Keywords: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; Growth hormone-releasing hormone receptor; Heat shock protein; Human papillomavirus; Neoadjuvant therapy
Year: 2018 PMID: 30519280 PMCID: PMC6264038 DOI: 10.1186/s13027-018-0210-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Agent Cancer ISSN: 1750-9378 Impact factor: 2.965
Characteristics of HPV negative versus HPV positive patients
| Variable | HPV negative | HPV positive | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ||
| Age at diagnosis | ≤ 60 | 29 (48.3%) | 4 (28.6%) |
| > 60 | 31 (51.7%) | 10 (71.4%) | |
| Gender | Female | 10 (16.7%) | 6 (42.9%) |
| Male | 50 (83.3%) | 8 (57.1%) | |
| Tumor location | Upper third | 8 (13.3%) | 4 (28.6%) |
| Middle third | 35 (58.3%) | 6 (42.8%) | |
| Lower third | 17 (28.4%) | 4 (28.6%) | |
| Clinical T stage | cT3 | 26 (43.3%) | 8 (57.1%) |
| cT4 | 34 (56.7%) | 6 (42.9%) | |
| Clinical N stage | cN0 | 6 (10.0%) | 4 (28.6%) |
| cN1–2 | 54 (90.0%) | 10 (71.4%) | |
| Clinical M stage | cM0 | 49 (81.7%) | 14 (100.0%) |
| cM1 | 11 (18.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
The effect of HPV status on response to CRT
| Clinical Downstaging ( |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Responder | Non-responder | |||
| HPV | negative | 34 (56.7%) | 26 (43.3%) |
|
| positive | 4 (28.6%) | 10 (71.4%) | ||
Fig. 1The effect of HPV status on overall survival demonstrated with Kaplan-Meier curve
The relationship between HPV status and expressions of Hsp 16.2, 27, 90 and GHRH-R
| Molecular Marker | HPV status ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| negative | positive | |||
| Hsp 16.2 | low intensity | 32 (53.3%) | 3 (21.4%) |
|
| high intensity | 28 (46.7%) | 11 (78.6%) | ||
| Hsp 27 | low intensity | 30 (50.0%) | 6 (42.9%) |
|
| high intensity | 30 (50.0%) | 8 (57.1%) | ||
| Hsp 90 | low intensity | 24 (40.0%) | 1 (7.1%) |
|
| high intensity | 36 (60.0%) | 13 (92.9%) | ||
| GHRH-R | low intensity | 42 (70.0%) | 8 (57.1%) |
|
| high intensity | 18 (30.0%) | 6 (42.9%) | ||
The effects of Hsp expression on response to CRT
| Molecular Marker | Clinical Downstaging ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Responder | Non-Responder | |||
| Hsp 16.2 | low intensity | 29 (82.9%) | 6 (17.1%) |
|
| high intensity | 9 (23.1%) | 30 (76.9%) | ||
| Hsp 27 | low intensity | 22 (61.1%) | 14 (38.9%) |
|
| high intensity | 16 (42.1%) | 22 (57.9%) | ||
| Hsp 90 | low intensity | 21 (84.0%) | 4 (16.0%) |
|
| high intensity | 17 (34.7%) | 32 (65.3%) | ||
Fig. 2The effect of Hsp 90 expression on overall survival is demonstrated using a Kaplan-Meier curve and the level of significance is determined using the log-rank test. Probability (p) values < 0.05 are considered statistically significant. p < 0.001
Fig. 3The effect of 16.2 expression on overall survival is demonstrated using a Kaplan-Meier curves and the level of significance is determined using the log-rank test. Probability (p) values < 0.05 are considered statistically significant. p < 0.001