| Literature DB >> 30619505 |
Fernanda Franco Munari1, Adriana Cruvinel-Carloni1, Croider Franco Lacerda1,2, Antônio Talvane Torres de Oliveira2, Cristovam Scapulatempo-Neto1,3, Sandra Regina Morini da Silva3, Eduardo Crema4, Sheila Jorge Adad4, Maria Aparecida Marchesan Rodrigues5, Maria Aparecida Coelho Arruda Henry5, Denise Peixoto Guimarães1,6, Adhemar Longatto-Filho1,7,8,9, Rui Manuel Reis1,9,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic diseases such as chagasic megaesophagus (secondary to Chagas' disease) have been suggested as etiological factors for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; however, the molecular mechanisms involved are poorly understood.Entities:
Keywords: Achalasia; Chagasic megaesophagus; Esophageal cancer; Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; Mutation; PIK3CA; Trypanosoma cruzi
Year: 2018 PMID: 30619505 PMCID: PMC6311070 DOI: 10.1186/s13027-018-0216-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Agent Cancer ISSN: 1750-9378 Impact factor: 2.965
The clinical-pathological features of the three groups of patients
| Variable | Groups ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | CM/ESCC ( | ESCC ( | CM ( | ||
| Gender | Female | 4 (17.4%) | 7 (18.4%) | 4 (14.3%) | 0.937** |
| Male | 19 (82.6%) | 31 (81.6%) | 24 (85.7%) | ||
| Age (years) | Mean (SD) | 59 (11) | 57 (9) | 59 (11) |
|
| Min - Max | 37–76 | 36–75 | 37–76 | ||
| Alcohol consumption | No | 7 (31.8%) | 8 (21.1%) | 20 (71.4%) |
|
| Yes | 15 (68.2%) | 30 (78.9%) | 8 (28.6%) | ||
| Missing | 11 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Tobacco consumption | No | 4 (18.2%) | 6 (15.8%) | 16 (57.1%) |
|
| Yes | 18 (81.8%) | 32 (84.2%) | 12 (42.9%) | ||
| Missing | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Tumor differentiation | Well differentiated | 5 (22.7%) | 7 (19.4%) | NA | 0.639** |
| Moderate differentiated | 16 (72.7%) | 24 (66.7%) | NA | ||
| Poorly differentiated | 1 (4.5%) | 5 (13.9%) | NA | ||
| Missing | 1 | 2 | NA | ||
| TNM Staging | I/II | 4 (23.5%) | 16 (42.1%) | NA | 0.235* |
| III/IV | 13 (76.5%) | 22 (57.9%) | NA | ||
| Missing | 6 | 0 | NA | ||
| Megaesophagus grades | GI/GII | 10 (45.5%) | NA | 4 (14.3%) |
|
| GIII/GIV | 12 (54.5%) | NA | 24 (85.7%) | ||
| Missing | 1 | NA | 0 | ||
*Chi-square association test; **Fisher’s exact test; ***Analysis of variance. CM/ESCC – chagasic megaesophagus associated with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; ESCC – esophageal squamous cell carcinoma without chagasic megaesophagus; CM – chagasic megaesophagus without esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; SD - standard deviation; NA – not applicable; Bold numbers - statistical significance
Fig. 1Electropherogram of PIK3CA gene. Exon 9 – wild-type sequence and mutated sequence (D549H). Exon 20 – wild-type sequence and mutated sequence (H1047R)
Frequency of PIK3CA mutations in the three study groups
| Variable | Groups ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Category | CM/ESCC ( | ESCC ( | CM ( | ||
| WT | 18 (78.3%) | 34 (89.5%) | 27 (96.4%) | 0.132** | |
| MUT | 5 (21.7%) | 4 (10.5%) | 1 (3.6%) | ||
**Fisher’s exact test. CM/ESCC – chagasic megaesophagus associated with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; ESCC – esophageal squamous cell carcinoma without chagasic megaesophagus; CM – chagasic megaesophagus without esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. WT – wild-type; MUT – mutant; N – number of cases
Profile of oncogenic PIK3CA mutations in the three study groups
| Group | Sample ID | Exon | Codon | Codon (WT – MUT) | Type of mutation | Amino acids change | Nature of mutation | COSMIC ID |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CM/ESCC | 111 T | 9 | 545 | GAG – GCA | A → C | E545A | Missense | COSM12458 |
| 122 T | 9 | 549 | GAT – CAT | G → C | D549H | Missense | COSM219119 | |
| 114 T | 20 | 1027 | GCC – GAC | C → A | A1027D | Missense | Not reported | |
| 119 T | 20 | 1047 | CAT – CTT | A → T | H1047L | Missense | COSM776 | |
| 124 T | 20 | 1047 | CAT–CGT | A → G | H1047R | Missense | COSM775 | |
| ESCC | 26 T | 9 | 545 | GAG – GCG | A → C | E545A | Missense | COSM12458 |
| 120 T | 9 | 555 | AGG – AAG | G → A | R555K | Missense | COSM1716158 | |
| 36 T | 9 | 524 | AGG – AAG | G → A | R524K | Missense | COSM53245 | |
| 4 T | 20 | 1030 | AAA – AGA | A → G | K1030R | Missense | Not reported | |
| CME | 101 M | 20 | 1053 | ACA – AAA | C → A | T1053K | Missense | Not reported |
CME/ESCC – chagasic megaesophagus associated with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; ESCC – esophageal squamous cell carcinoma without chagasic megaesophagus; CME – chagasic megaesophagus without esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. A – adenine; C – cytosine; G – guanine; T – thymine. WT – wild-type; MUT – mutant
Fig. 2PIK3CA protein and missense mutation overview
Association between PIK3CA mutation status with main clinical-pathological features in the three groups
| Variable | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CM/ESCC group | ESCC group | CM group | ||||||||
| Category | WT | MUT | p-value | WT | MUT | p-value | WT | MUT | ||
| Alcohol consumption | No | 6 (35.3%) | 1 (20%) | 1.000** | 7 (21.2%) | 1 (20%) | 1.000** | 19 (70.4%) | 1 (100%) | 1.000** |
| Yes | 11 (64.7%) | 4 (80%) | 26 (78.8%) | 4 (80%) | 8 (29.6%) | 0 (0%) | ||||
| Tobacco consumption | No | 4 (23.5%) | 0 (0%) | 0.535** | 5 (15.2%) | 1 (20%) | 1.000** | 15 (100%) | 1 (100%) | 1.000** |
| Yes | 13 (76.5%) | 5 (100%) | 28 (84.8%) | 4 (80%) | 12 (44.4%) | 0 (0%) | ||||
| Tumor differentiation | Well | 4 (22.2%) | 1 (25%) | 1.000** | 7 (22.6%) | 0 (0%) | 0.171** | NA | NA | NA |
| Moderate | 13 (72.2%) | 3 (75%) | 21 (67.7%) | 3 (60%) | NA | NA | ||||
| Poorly | 1 (5.6%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (9.7%) | 2 (40%) | NA | NA | ||||
| TNM Staging | I e II | 4 (28.6%) | 0 (0%) | 0.541** | 15 (46.9%) | 1 (20%) | 0.421** | NA | NA | NA |
| III e IV | 10 (71.4%) | 3 (100%) | 17 (53.1%) | 4 (80%) | NA | NA | ||||
| Megaesophagus degree | GI/GII | 7 (41.2%) | 3 (60%) | 0.406** | NA | NA | NA | 3 (11.1%) | 1 (100%) | 0.143** |
| GIII/GIV | 10 (58.8%) | 2 (40%) | NA | NA | 24 (88.9%) | 0 (0%) | ||||
| WT | 9 (50%) | 2 (40%) | 1.000** | 20 (60.6%) | 2 (40%) | 0.632** | 26 (96.3%) | 1 (100%) | 1.000** | |
| MUT | 9 (50%) | 3 (60%) | 13 (39.4%) | 3 (60%) | 1 (3.7%) | 0 (0%) | ||||
**Fisher’s exact test; ***Analysis of variance. CME/ESCC – chagasic megaesophagus associated with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; ESCC – esophageal squamous cell carcinoma without chagasic megaesophagus; CME – chagasic megaesophagus without esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. N – number of cases; SD – standard deviation; NA – not applicable; WT – wild-type; MUT – mutated
Fig. 3Cumulative survival of patients associated with the PIK3CA gene status. The red curves represent patients with mutation and the blue curves represent wild-type patients. a CM/ESCC – chagasic megaesophagus associated with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus; b ESCC – squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus; MUT – mutant; WT – wild-type
The time and average of patients’ overall survival according to PIK3CA mutation status
| Groups | Time | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Total | N events | 6 months | 1 year | 3 years | 5 years | Median survival | ||
| CM/ESCC | WT | 13 | 10 | 79.4% | 72.2% | 43.3% | 28.9% | 2 years |
|
| MUT | 5 | 5 | 20.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 5 months | ||
| ESCC | WT | 24 | 22 | 82.6% | 64.7% | 32.6% | 14.5% | 2 years | 0.405 |
| MUT | 4 | 4 | 80.0% | 80.0% | 60.0% | 0.0% | 2.5 years | ||
*Log-rank test. CM/ESCC – chagasic megaesophagus associated with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; ESCC – esophageal squamous cell carcinoma without chagasic megaesophagus; WT – wild-type; MUT – mutated; Bold numbers - statistical significance
Frequency of PIK3CA mutations identified in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma worldwide
| References | Year | Country (Region) | Patients of study | Type of sample | Techniques | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mori et al. [ | 2008 | Japan | 88 | 2.2% | FT | Direct Sequencing |
| Wang et al. [ | 2013 | China | 76 | 3.9% | FT | Direct Sequencing |
| Akagi et al. [ | 2009 | Japan | 52 | 7.7% | FFPE | Direct Sequencing |
| Kim et al. [ | 2016 | Korea | 534 | 10.5% | FFPE | Direct Sequencing |
| Phillips et al. [ | 2006 | Australia | 35 | 11.8% | FFPE | Direct Sequencing |
| Zheng et al. [ | 2016 | China | 79 | 19.7% | FT | Pyrosequencing |
| Shigaki et al. [ | 2013 | China | 219 | 21.0% | FT | Pyrosequencing |
| Liu et al. [ | 2017 | China | 210 | 22.9% | FFPE | Pyrosequencing |
| Baba et al. [ | 2015 | Japan | 440 | 23.0% | FFPE | Pyrosequencing |
| Yang et al. [ | 2017 | China | 24 | 4.2% | FFPE | NGS |
| Song et al. [ | 2014 | China | 158 | 4.5% | FT | NGS |
| Lin et al. [ | 2014 | China | 139 | 7.0% | FFPE | NGS |
| Gao et al. [ | 2014 | Japan | 133 | 9.0% | FT | NGS |
| Sawada et al. [ | 2016 | Japan | 144 | 10.4% | FT | NGS |
| TCGA et al. [ | 2017 | Western and Eastern | 90 | 13.0% | FT | NGS |
| Yokota et al. [ | 2018 | Japan | 126 | 13.5% | FFPE | NGS |
| Zhang et al. [ | 2015 | China | 90 | 17.0% | FT | NGS |
| Wang et al. [ | 2015 | USA | 71 | 24.0% | FFPE | NGS |
NGS – next generation sequencing; FFPE – formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue; FT – fresh frozen tissue