| Literature DB >> 30893904 |
Yao-Kuang Wang1,2, Wei-Chung Chen3, Ying-Ho Lai4, Yi-Hsun Chen5, Ming-Tsang Wu6,7, Chie-Tong Kuo8, Yen-Yun Wang9, Shyng-Shiou F Yuan10, Yu-Peng Liu11,12,13, I-Chen Wu14,15.
Abstract
Alcohol is an important risk factor for the development of second esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (ESCC) in head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients. However, the influence of tea consumption is uncertain. We prospectively performed endoscopic screening in incident HNSCC patients to identify synchronous esophageal neoplasm. In total, 987 patients enrolled between October 2008 and December 2017 and were analyzed. In vitro studies were conducted to investigate the effect of epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) on the betel alkaloid, arecoline-stimulated carcinogenesis in two ESCC cell lines. There were 151 patients (15.3%) diagnosed to have synchronous esophageal neoplasm, including 88 low-grade dysplasia, 30 high-grade dysplasia and 33 squamous-cell carcinoma (SCC). Tea consumption was associated with a significantly lower risk of having esophageal high-grade dysplasia or SCC in HNSCC patients, especially those who were betel nut chewers, alcohol drinkers or cigarette smokers (all adjusted odds ratio were 0.5; p-values: 0.045, 0.045 and 0.049 respectively). In vitro studies indicated that EGCG suppressed arecoline-induced ESCC cell proliferation and colony formation through the inhibition of the Akt and ERK1/2 pathway in a reactive oxygen species-independent manner. In conclusion, tea consumption may protect against the development of second esophageal neoplasms among HNSCC patients, especially those who regularly consume betel nuts, alcohol and cigarettes.Entities:
Keywords: EGCG; arecoline; head and neck cancer; second esophageal neoplasm; tea
Year: 2019 PMID: 30893904 PMCID: PMC6468666 DOI: 10.3390/cancers11030387
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Baseline characteristics of the 987 incident head and neck cancer patients.
| Characteristics | No Esophageal Neoplasm | Esophageal Low Grade Dysplasia | Esophageal High Grade Dysplasia/SCC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) |
| |||
| <50 | 279 (33.4) | 20 (22.7) | 28 (44.4) | |
| ≥50 | 557 (66.6) | 68 (77.3) | 35 (55.6) | |
| Gender (Male) | 836 (100) | 88 (100) | 63 (100) | |
| Smoking |
| |||
| Non-smoker | 109 (13.0) | 7 (8.0) | 1 (1.6) | |
| Smoker | 727 (87.0) | 81 (92.0) | 62 (98.4) | |
| Alcohol drinking |
| |||
| Non-drinker | 233 (27.9) | 10 (11.6) | 1 (1.6) | |
| Drinker | 603 (72.1) | 78 (88.6) | 62 (98.4) | |
| Betel nut | 0.953 | |||
| Non-chewer | 184 (22.0) | 22 (25.0) | 13 (20.6) | |
| Chewer | 651 (77.9) | 66 (75.0) | 50 (79.1) | |
| Tea drinking |
| |||
| Non-consumer | 562 (67.2) | 53 (60.2) | 51 (81.0) | |
| Consumer | 274 (32.8) | 35 (39.8) | 12 (19.0) | |
| Cancer Stage |
| |||
| 0–I | 136 (16.3) | 14 (15.9) | 3 (4.8) | |
| II | 117 (14.0) | 15 (17.0) | 6 (9.5) | |
| III | 154 (18.4) | 8 (9.1) | 11 (17.5) | |
| IV | 429 (51.3) | 51 (58.0) | 43 (68.3) | |
| Location of index cancer |
| |||
| Oral cavity | 623 (74.5) | 55 (62.5) | 17 (27.0) | |
| Oropharynx | 117 (14.0) | 19 (21.6) | 15 (23.8) | |
| Hypopharynx | 68 (8.1) | 13 (14.8) | 26 (41.3) | |
| Larynx | 28 (3.3) | 1 (1.1) | 5 (7.9) |
Abbreviations: SCC, squamous cell carcinoma. p value was tested with Chi-square test.
Risk factors for the development of esophageal squamous neoplasm in head and neck cancer patients.
| Characteristics | Low Grade Dysplasia vs. No Neoplasm | High Grade Dysplasia/SCC vs. No Neoplasm | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cOR | 95% CI | aOR | 95% CI |
| cOR | 95% CI | aOR | 95% CI |
| |
| Age | ||||||||||
| <50 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| ≥50 | 1.7 | 1.0–2.9 |
|
| 0.6 | 0.4–1.1 | 0.7 | 0.4–1.3 | 0.25 | |
| Smoking | ||||||||||
| Non-smoker | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Smoker | 1.7 | 0.8–3.9 | 1.7 | 0.7–4.0 | 0.22 |
| 5.6 | 0.8–42.2 | 0.09 | |
| Alcohol | ||||||||||
| Non-drinker | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Drinker | 3.0 | 1.5–5.9 |
|
| 23.9 | 3.3–173.4 |
|
| ||
| Betel nut | ||||||||||
| Non-chewer | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Chewer | 0.8 | 0.5–1.4 | 0.6 | 0.4–1.1 | 0.09 | 1.1 | 0.6–2.0 | 0.6 | 0.3–1.1 | 0.08 |
| Tea drinking | ||||||||||
| Non-consumer | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Consumer | 1.4 | 0.9–2.1 | 1.3 | 0.8–2.0 | 0.33 |
|
|
| ||
| Stage | ||||||||||
| 0–I | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| II | 1.2 | 0.6–2.7 | 1.4 | 0.6–3.0 | 0.45 | 2.3 | 0.6–9.5 | 2.8 | 0.7–11.7 | 0.16 |
| III | 0.5 | 0.2–1.2 | 0.5 | 0.2–1.2 | 0.11 | 3.2 | 0.9–11.8 | 2.9 | 0.8–10.7 | 0.11 |
| IV | 1.2 | 0.6–2.2 | 1.1 | 0.6–2.1 | 0.69 |
|
|
| ||
Abbreviations: SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; cOR, crude odds ratio; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval. p value was tested with the logistic regression model for categorical variables for all the variables in the table.
Influence of tea consumption on the development of severe esophageal neoplasm in head and neck cancer patients stratified by substance use.
| Characteristics | No Neoplasm | High Grade Dysplasia/SCC | High Grade Dysplasia/SCC vs. No Neoplasm | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| aOR | 95% CI | ||
| Betel nut | |||||
| Betel nut non-chewer | |||||
| Tea non-consumer | 123 | 10 | 1 | ||
| Tea consumer | 61 | 3 | 0.8 | 0.2–3.3 | 0.705 |
| Betel nut chewer | |||||
| Tea non-consumer | 438 | 41 | 1 | ||
| Tea consumer | 213 | 9 |
|
| |
| Alcohol | |||||
| Alcohol non-drinker | |||||
| Tea non-consumer | 151 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Tea consumer | 82 | 0 | - | - | 0.924 |
| Alcohol drinker | |||||
| Tea non-consumer | 411 | 50 | 1 | ||
| Tea consumer | 192 | 12 |
|
| |
| Smoking | |||||
| Cigarette non-smoker | |||||
| Tea non-consumer | 78 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Tea consumer | 31 | 0 | - | - | 0.938 |
| Cigarette smoker | |||||
| Tea non-consumer | 484 | 50 | 1 | ||
| Tea consumer | 243 | 12 |
|
| |
Abbreviations: SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; CI, confidence interval. p value was tested with the logistic regression model for categorical variables for all the variables in the table.
Figure 1Epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) reduced arecoline-promoted cell proliferation and soft-agar colony formation. (A) OE21 and CE81T/VGH cells were treated with different concentrations of arecoline for three days. The cell numbers were counted. (B) The data of low-dose arecoline (3.9, 7.8, 15.6, 31.2 and 62.5 μM) treatment acquired from the red-dot open box in (A). (C) OE21 cells were pretreated with 15.6 μM arecoline for two weeks, then the cells were treated with dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) (vehicle) or 15.6 μM arecoline with/without 5 μM EGCG for 24, 48 and 72 h. The cell growth was examined by cell proliferation. * p < 0.05. (D) OE21 cells were pretreated with 15.6 μM arecoline for two weeks, then the cells were treated with DMSO (vehicle) or 15.6 μM arecoline with/without 5 μM EGCG for 24, 48 and 72 h. The anchorage-independent growth of the cells was examined by soft-age colony formation assay. * p < 0.05 compared to the cells without arecoline and EGCG treatment.
Figure 2EGCG inhibited arecoline-induced Akt and ERK1/2 phosphorylation independent of its antioxidant activity. (A) ROS levels in the culture medium of OE21 cells treated with arecoline (15.6 μM), EGCG (5 μM) and/or NAC (10 μM) was examined. * p < 0.05, # p < 0.05. (B) OE21 and CE81T/VGH cells were treated with arecoline at indicated concentrations for different time points. The phosphorylation of Akt and ERK1/2 was analyzed by Western blot. (C,D) OE21 and CE81T/VGH cells were treated with arecoline and/or EGCG (5 μM) (C)/ NAC (10 μM) (D) for 60 min and 10 min for OE21 and CE81T/VGH respectively. The phosphorylation of Akt and ERK1/2 was analyzed by Western blot.
Figure 3Arecoline-facilitated cell proliferation and colony formation were mediated by the Akt signaling pathway. OE21 cells were treated with arecoline and/or MK2206 (1 μM). (A) The Akt phosphorylation was examined by Western blot. The cell growth was analyzed by (B) proliferation assay and (C) soft-agar colony formation assay. OE21 cells were treated with arecoline and/or PD98059 (10 μM). (D) The Akt phosphorylation was examined by Western blot. The cell growth was analyzed by (E) proliferation assay and (F) soft-agar colony formation assay. * p < 0.05.