| Literature DB >> 30813594 |
Min-Che Tung1,2, Yu-Ching Wen3,4, Shian-Shiang Wang5,6,7, Yung-Wei Lin8,9, Jyh-Ming Chow10, Shun-Fa Yang11,12, Ming-Hsien Chien13,14.
Abstract
Increasing evidence shows that dysregulated expression of long non-coding (lnc)RNAs can serve as diagnostic or prognostic markers in urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC), the most common pathological type of bladder cancer. lncRNA HOX transcript antisense RNA (HOTAIR) was shown to promote tumor progression and be associated with a poor prognosis in multiple cancers including bladder cancer. Polymorphisms of HOTAIR were recently linked to a predisposition for diverse malignancies. Herein we conducted a case-control study to evaluate whether genetic polymorphisms of HOTAIR were associated with UCC risk and clinicopathologic characteristics. Four loci (rs920778 T>C, rs1899663 G>T, rs4759314 A>G, and rs12427129, C>T) of HOTAIR were genotyped by a TaqMan allelic discrimination method in 431 cases and 862 controls. We found that female patients who carried AG + GG genotype of rs4759314 were associated with an increased UCC risk after controlling for age and tobacco consumption (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01⁻3.64, p = 0.047) and a lower overall survival rate (p = 0.008). Moreover, patients with a smoking habit or younger age (≤65 years), who had at least one T allele of HOTAIR rs12427129 were at a higher risk of developing advance tumor T satge (p = 0.046), compared to those patients with CC homozygotes. In contrast, rs920778 C allele carriers were negatively correlated with the development of lymph node metastasis (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.28⁻0.94, p = 0.031). Further analyses of clinical datasets revealed correlations of the expression of HOTAIR with tumor metastasis and a poor survival rate in patients with UCC. Our results verified the diverse impacts of HOTAIR variants on UCC susceptibility and clinicopathologic characteristics.Entities:
Keywords: HOX antisense intergenic RNA; clinicopathologic characteristics; long non-coding RNA; polymorphism; susceptibility; urothelial cell carcinoma
Year: 2019 PMID: 30813594 PMCID: PMC6462928 DOI: 10.3390/jcm8030282
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
The distributions of demographical characteristics in 431 patients with UCC and 862 controls.
| Variable | Controls ( | Patients ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | |||
| mean ± S.D. | 57.2 ± 10 | 68.6 ± 11.8 | |
| ≤65 | 697 (80.9%) | 166 (38.5%) | |
| >65 | 165 (19.1%) | 265 (61.5%) | |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 566 (65.7%) | 272 (63.1%) | 0.365 |
| Female | 296 (34.3%) | 159 (36.9%) | |
| Tobacco consumption | |||
| No | 562 (65.2%) | 300 (69.6%) | 0.113 |
| Yes | 300 (34.8%) | 131 (30.4%) | |
| Stage | |||
| Non-muscle invasive tumor | 235 (54.5%) | ||
| Muscle invasive tumor | 196 (45.5%) | ||
| Tumor T Status | |||
| Ta | 90 (16.5%) | ||
| Tcis | 19 (4.4%) | ||
| T1 | 145 (33.6%) | ||
| T2 | 52 (12.1%) | ||
| T3 | 107 (24.8%) | ||
| T4 | 37 (8.6%) | ||
| Lymph Node Status | |||
| N0 | 380 (88.2%) | ||
| N1 | 13 (3.0%) | ||
| N2 | 33 (7.6%) | ||
| N3 | 5 (1.2%) | ||
| Metastasis | |||
| M0 | 417 (96.8%) | ||
| M1 | 14 (3.2%) | ||
| Histopathologic Grading | |||
| Low grade | 53 (12.3%) | ||
| High grade | 378 (87.7%) |
S.D., standard deviation.
Genotype distributions of HOTAIR gene polymorphisms in 862 controls and 431 patients with urothelial cell carcinoma.
| Variable | Controls ( | Patients ( | OR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| rs920778 | ||||
| TT | 447 (51.9%) | 217 (50.3%) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
| TC | 360 (41.8%) | 176 (40.8%) | 1.01 (0.79–1.28) | 0.96 (0.73–1.27) |
| CC | 55 (6.4%) | 38 (8.8%) | 1.42 (0.91–2.22) | 1.60 (0.96–2.68) |
| TC + CC | 415 (48.1%) | 214 (49.7%) | 1.06 (0.84–1.34) | 1.04 (0.80–1.35) |
| rs1899663 | ||||
| GG | 550 (63.8%) | 265 (61.5%) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
| GT | 285 (33.1%) | 148 (34.3%) | 1.08 (0.84–1.38) | 0.95 (0.71–1.25) |
| TT | 27 (3.1%) | 18 (4.2%) | 1.38 (0.75–2.56) | 1.85 (0.92–3.73) |
| GT + TT | 312 (36.2%) | 166 (38.5%) | 1.10 (0.87–1.40) | 1.01 (0.77–1.32) |
| rs4759314 | ||||
| AA | 727 (84.3%) | 363 (84.2%) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
| AG | 128 (14.8%) | 67 (15.5%) | 1.05 (0.76–1.45) | 1.07 (0.74–1.54) |
| GG | 7 (0.8%) | 1 (0.2%) | 0.29 (0.04–2.33) | 0.59 (0.06–5.58) |
| AG + GG | 135 (15.7%) | 68 (15.8%) | 1.01 (0.73–1.39) | 1.05 (0.73–1.51) |
| rs12427129 | ||||
| CC | 691 (80.2%) | 350 (81.2%) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
| CT | 167 (19.4%) | 76 (17.6%) | 0.90 (0.67–1.21) | 1.00 (0.71–1.41) |
| TT | 4 (0.5%) | 5 (1.2%) | 2.47 (0.66–9.25) | 2.23 (0.44–11.23) |
| CT + TT | 171 (19.8%) | 81 (18.8%) | 0.94 (0.70–1.26) | 1.03 (0.74–1.44) |
The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by logistic regression models. The adjusted OR (AOR) and the 95% CI were estimated by multivariable logistic regression models after controlling for age, gender, and tobacco consumption.
Genotype distributions of HOTAIR gene polymorphisms among 455 female subjects.
| Variable | Controls ( | Patients ( | OR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| rs920778 | ||||
| TT | 155 (52.4%) | 79 (49.7%) | 1.000 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
| TC | 120 (40.5%) | 61 (38.4%) | 1.00 (0.66–1.50) | 1.03 (0.62–1.71) |
| CC | 21 (7.1%) | 19 (11.9%) | 1.78 (0.90–3.49) | 1.96 (0.84–4.61) |
| TC + CC | 141 (47.6%) | 80 (50.3%) | 1.11 (0.76–1.64) | 1.16 (0.72–1.88) |
| rs1899663 | ||||
| GG | 191 (64.5%) | 95 (59.7%) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
| GT | 94 (31.8%) | 57 (35.8%) | 1.22 (0.81–1.84) | 0.92 (0.55–1.54) |
| TT | 11 (3.7%) | 7 (4.4%) | 1.28 (0.48–3.41) | 1.79 (0.58–5.51) |
| GT + TT | 105 (35.5%) | 64 (40.3%) | 1.23 (0.82–1.82) | 1.00 (0.61–1.63) |
| rs4759314 | ||||
| AA | 256 (86.5%) | 126 (79.2%) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
| AG | 35 (11.8%) | 32 (20.1%) |
|
|
| GG | 5 (1.7%) | 1 (0.6%) | 0.41 (0.05–3.52) | 1.12 (0.09–13.66) |
| AG + GG | 40 (13.5%) | 33 (20.8%) |
|
|
| rs12427129 | ||||
| CC | 240 (81.1%) | 128 (80.5%) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
| CT | 53 (17.9%) | 28 (17.6%) | 0.99 (0.60–1.64) | 1.50 (0.80–2.80) |
| TT | 3 (1%) | 3 (1.9%) | 1.88 (0.37–9.42) | 1.40 (0.19–10.56) |
| CT+TT | 56 (18.9%) | 31 (19.5%) | 1.04 (0.64–1.69) | 1.49 (0.81–2.73) |
Bold font indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05). The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by logistic regression models. The adjusted OR (AOR) and 95% confidence interval were estimated by multivariable logistic regression models after controlling for age, gender, and tobacco consumption.
Genotype distributions of HOTAIR gene polymorphisms among 838 male subjects.
| Variable | Controls ( | Patients ( | OR (95% CI) | AOR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| TT | 292 (51.6%) | 138 (50.7%) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
| TC | 240 (42.4%) | 115 (42.3%) | 1.01 (0.75–1.37) | 0.95 (0.68–1.32) |
| CC | 34 (6%) | 19 (7%) | 1.18 (0.65–2.15) | 1.41 (0.73–2.73) |
| TC + CC | 274 (48.4%) | 134 (49.3%) | 1.03 (0.77–1.38) | 1.00 (0.73–1.37) |
|
| ||||
| GG | 359 (63.4%) | 170 (62.5%) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
| GT | 191 (33.7%) | 91 (33.5%) | 1.01 (0.74–1.37) | 0.94 (0.67–1.32) |
| TT | 16 (2.8%) | 11 (4%) | 1.45 (0.66–3.20) | 1.98 (0.81–4.84) |
| GT + TT | 207 (36.6%) | 102 (37.5%) | 1.04 (0.77–1.40) | 1.01 (0.72–1.40) |
|
| ||||
| AA | 471 (83.2%) | 237 (87.1%) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
| AG | 93 (16.4%) | 35 (12.9%) | 0.75 (0.49–1.14) | 0.79 (0.50–1.24) |
| GG | 2 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | - | - |
| AG + GG | 95 (16.8%) | 35 (12.9%) | 0.73 (0.48–1.11) | 0.77 (0.49–1.22) |
|
| ||||
| CC | 451 (79.7%) | 222 (81.6%) | 1.00 (reference) | 1.00 (reference) |
| CT | 114 (20.1%) | 48 (17.6%) | 0.86 (0.59–1.24) | 0.88 (0.58–1.32) |
| TT | 1 (0.2%) | 2 (0.7%) | 4.06 (0.37–45.05) | 6.94 (0.28–169.70) |
| CT+TT | 115 (20.3%) | 50 (18.4%) | 0.88 (0.61–1.28) | 0.91 (0.61–1.36) |
Distribution frequency of the clinical status and HOTAIR rs920778 genotype frequencies in 431 urothelial cell carcinoma patients.
| Variable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TT (%) ( | TC+CC (%) ( | OR (95% CI) | ||
| Stage | ||||
| Non-muscle invasive tumor (pTa–pT1) | 113 (52.1%) | 122 (57%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Muscle invasive tumor (pT2–pT4) | 104 (47.9%) | 92 (43%) | 0.82 (0.56–1.20) | 0.304 |
| Tumor T status | ||||
| Ta–Tcis | 50 (23%) | 40 (18.7%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| T1–T4 | 167 (77%) | 174 (81.3%) | 1.30 (0.82–.077) | 0.267 |
| Lymph node status | ||||
| N0 | 184 (84.8%) | 196 (91.6%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| N1+N2+N3 | 33 (15.2%) | 18 (8.4%) |
|
|
| Metastasis | ||||
| M0 | 208 (95.9%) | 209 (97.7%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| M1 | 9 (4.1%) | 5 (2.3%) | 0.55 (0.18–1.68) | 0.295 |
| Histopathologic grading | ||||
| Low grade | 24 (11.1%) | 29 (13.6%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| High grade | 193 (88.9%) | 185 (86.4%) | 0.79 (0.45–1.41) | 0.432 |
The bold font indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05). The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by logistic regression models.
Distribution frequency of the clinical status and HOTAIR rs1899663, rs4759314 and rs12427129 genotype frequencies in 431 urothelial cell carcinoma patients.
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |
| Stage | ||||
| Non-muscle invasive tumor | 141 (53.2%) | 94 (56.6%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Muscle invasive tumor | 124 (46.8%) | 72 (43.4%) | 0.87 (0.59–1.29) | 0.488 |
| Tumor T status | ||||
| Ta–Tcis | 62 (23.4%) | 28 (16.9%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| T1–T4 | 203 (76.6%) | 138 (83.1%) | 1.51 (0.92–2.47) | 0.106 |
| Lymph node status | ||||
| N0 | 230 (86.8%) | 150 (90.4%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| N1+N2+N3 | 35 (13.2%) | 16 (9.6%) | 0.70 (0.37–1.31) | 0.266 |
| Metastasis | ||||
| M0 | 255 (96.2%) | 162 (97.6%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| M1 | 10 (3.8%) | 4 (2.4%) | 0.63 (0.19–2.04) | 0.441 |
| Histopathologic grading | ||||
| Low grade | 32 (12.1%) | 21 (12.7%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| High grade | 233 (87.9%) | 145 (87.3%) | 0.95 (0.53–1.71) | 0.860 |
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |
| Stage | ||||
| Non-muscle invasive tumor | 199 (54.8%) | 36 (52.9%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Muscle invasive tumor | 164 (45.2%) | 32 (47.1%) | 1.08 (0.64–1.81) | 0.775 |
| Tumor T status | ||||
| Ta–Tcis | 75 (20.7%) | 15 (22.1%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| T1–T4 | 288 (79.3%) | 53 (77.9%) | 0.92 (0.49–1.72) | 0.795 |
| Lymph node status | ||||
| N0 | 317 (87.3%) | 63 (92.6%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| N1+N2+N3 | 46 (12.7%) | 5 (7.4%) | 0.55 (0.21–1.43) | 0.219 |
| Metastasis | ||||
| M0 | 351 (96.7%) | 66 (97.1%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| M1 | 12 (3.3%) | 2 (2.9%) | 0.89 (0.19–4.05) | 0.876 |
| Histopathologic grading | ||||
| Low grade | 44 (12.1%) | 9 (13.2%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| High grade | 319 (87.9%) | 59 (86.8%) | 0.9 (0.42–1.95) | 0.797 |
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| |
| Stage | ||||
| Non-muscle invasive tumor | 185 (52.9%) | 50 (61.7%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Muscle invasive tumor | 165 (47.1%) | 31 (38.3%) | 0.70 (0.42–1.14) | 0.150 |
| Tumor T status | ||||
| Ta–Tcis | 77 (22%) | 13 (16%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| T1–T4 | 273 (78%) | 68 (84%) | 1.48 (0.77–2.81) | 0.237 |
| Lymph node status | ||||
| N0 | 307 (87.7%) | 73 (90.1%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| N1+N2+N3 | 43 (12.3%) | 8 (9.9%) | 0.78 (0.35–1.74) | 0.546 |
| Metastasis | ||||
| M0 | 339 (96.9%) | 78 (96.3%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| M1 | 11 (3.1%) | 3 (3.7%) | 1.19 (0.32–4.35) | 0.798 |
| Histopathologic grading | ||||
| Low grade | 46 (13.1%) | 7 (8.6%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| High grade | 304 (86.9%) | 74 (91.4%) | 1.6 (0.69–3.69) | 0.270 |
The bold font indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05). The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by logistic regression models.
Distribution frequency of the clinical status and HOTAIR rs12427129 genotype frequencies in 131 urothelial cell carcinoma patients who were smokers.
| Variable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CC (%) ( | CT + TT (%), ( | OR (95% CI) | ||
| Stage | ||||
| Non-muscle invasive tumor (pTa–pT1) | 50 (48.5%) | 19 (67.9%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Muscle invasive tumor (pT2–pT4) | 53 (51.5%) | 9 (32.1%) | 0.45 (0.19–1.08) | 0.074 |
| Tumor T status | ||||
| Ta–Tcis | 27 (26.2%) | 2 (7.1%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| T1–T4 | 76 (73.8%) | 26 (92.9%) |
|
|
| Lymph node status | ||||
| N0 | 87 (84.5%) | 25 (89.3%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| N1+N2+N3 | 16 (15.5%) | 3 (10.7%) | 0.65 (0.18–2.42) | 0.523 |
| Metastasis | ||||
| M0 | 95 (92.2%) | 27 (96.4%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| M1 | 8 (7.8%) | 1 (3.6%) | 0.44 (0.05–3.67) | 0.448 |
| Histopathologic grading | ||||
| Low grade | 16 (15.5%) | 1 (3.6%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| High grade | 87 (84.5%) | 27 (96.4%) | 4.97 (0.63–39.19) | 0.128 |
The bold font indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05). The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by logistic regression models.
Distribution frequency of the clinical status and HOTAIR rs12427129 genotype frequencies in 166 UCC patients aged ≤65 years.
| Variable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CC (%), ( | CT + TT (%) ( | OR (95% CI) | ||
| Stage | ||||
| Non-muscle invasive tumor (pTa–pT1) | 67 (52.3%) | 21 (55.3%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| Muscle invasive tumor (pT2–pT4) | 61 (47.7%) | 17 (44.7%) | 0.89 (0.43–1.84) | 0.752 |
| Tumor T status | ||||
| Ta–Tcis | 30 (23.4%) | 3 (7.9%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| T1–T4 | 98 (76.6%) | 35 (92.1%) |
|
|
| Lymph node status | ||||
| N0 | 106 (82.8%) | 33 (86.8%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| N1 + N2 + N3 | 22 (17.2%) | 5 (13.2%) | 0.73 (0.26–2.08) | 0.556 |
| Metastasis | ||||
| M0 | 122 (95.3%) | 37 (97.4%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| M1 | 6 (4.7%) | 1 (2.6%) | 0.55 (0.06–4.71) | 0.585 |
| Histopathologic grading | ||||
| Low grade | 20 (15.6%) | 3 (7.9%) | 1.00 (reference) | |
| High grade | 108 (84.4%) | 35 (92.1%) | 2.16 (0.61–7.71) | 0.235 |
The bold font indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05). The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by logistic regression models.
Distribution frequency of the clinical status and for HOTAIR SNPs frequencies in UCC patients with stratified by age and smoking status.
| Variable | Smoker | Non-Smokers | Aged ≤65 Years | Aged >65 Years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Stage | ||||
| Tumor T status | ||||
| Lymph node status | ||||
| Metastasis | ||||
| Histopathologic grading | ||||
|
| ||||
| Stage | ||||
| Tumor T status | ||||
| Lymph node status | ||||
| Metastasis | ||||
| Histopathologic grading | ||||
|
| ||||
| Stage | ||||
| Tumor T status | ||||
| Lymph node status | ||||
| Metastasis | ||||
| Histopathologic grading | ||||
|
| ||||
| Stage | ||||
| Tumor T status |
|
| ||
| Lymph node status | ||||
| Metastasis | ||||
| Histopathologic grading | ||||
The bold font indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05). a: The p-value was estimated the difference between HOTAIR SNPs (homozygous wild-type (WT) alleles and those who had at least one polymorphic allele) and the different stage status (Non-muscle invasive tumor and muscle invasive tumor). b: The p-value was estimated the difference between HOTAIR SNPs (homozygous wild-type (WT) alleles and those who had at least one polymorphic allele) and the different tumor T status (Ta–Tcis and T1–T4). c: The p-value was estimated the difference between HOTAIR SNPs (homozygous wild-type (WT) alleles and those who had at least one polymorphic allele) and the different lymph node status (N0 and N1+N2+N3). d: The p-value was estimated the difference between HOTAIR SNPs (homozygous wild-type (WT) alleles and those who had at least one polymorphic allele) and the different metastasis status (M0 and M1). e: The p-value was estimated the difference between HOTAIR SNPs (homozygous wild-type (WT) alleles and those who had at least one polymorphic allele) and the different hstopathologic grading status (low grade and high grade).
Figure 1Association of rs4759314 with survival of urothelial cell carcinoma (UCC) patients. Kaplan-Meier analysis of correlations between rs4759314 genotypes and overall survival of 166 younger (aged ≤65 years) UCC patients (A) and 159 female UCC patients (B).
Figure 2High expression of HOTAIR in urothelial bladder cancer tissues is associated with patients with tumor metastasis and poor prognoses. (A,B) HOTAIR gene expression levels in urothelial bladder cancer tissues from TCGA were compared according to the lymph node metastasis status (N stages) (A) and distal metastasis status (M stages) (B). (C) A Kaplan-Meier plot of overall survival of 165 patients with urothelial bladder cancer (GSE13507) stratified by HOTAIR expression. A log-rank test was used to examine between-group differences.