| Literature DB >> 31109334 |
Sen Cheng1, Jiaqi Wu2, Chuzhong Li3, Yangfang Li1, Chunhui Liu3, Guilin Li1, Wuju Li2, Shuofeng Hu2, Xiaomin Ying4, Yazhuo Zhang5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compared with clinically functioning pituitary adenoma (FPA), clinically non-functioning pituitary adenoma (NFPA) lacks of detectable hypersecreting serum hormones and related symptoms which make it difficult to predict the prognosis and monitoring for postoperative tumour regrowth. We aim to investigate whether the expression of selected tumour-related proteins and clinical features could be used as tumour markers to effectively predict the regrowth of NFPA.Entities:
Keywords: Clinically non-functioning pituitary adenoma; Predicting model; Regrowth
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31109334 PMCID: PMC6528212 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-019-1915-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Fig. 1Flowchart of the study
Fig. 2Differential and Kaplan–Meier analyses of protein signatures. Scatter diagram showing the statistical significance results of 41 tumour related proteins. Sixteen and seventeen protein signatures were valuable in differential and Kaplan–Meier analyses, respectively (P < 0.01)
Fig. 3Differential and Kaplan–Meier analyses of the three protein signatures in patients with NFPA. Distributions of p16, WIF1 and TGF-β protein expression levels in patients of non-regrowth and regrowth cohorts (a, c, e). The Kaplan–Meier curves of PFS between the low and high median protein expression level groups are also shown (b, d, f)
Clinical characteristics of the patients with NFPA
| Characteristics | All patients (n = 295) | Regrowth cohort (n = 98) | Non-regrowth cohort (n = 197) | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | p value | OR (95% CI) | p value | ||||
| Gender | 0.067 | – | |||||
| Female | 140 (47.46%) | 56 (57.14%) | 84 (42.64%) | 1.00 (referent) | – | ||
| Male | 155 (52.54%) | 42 (42.86%) | 113 (57.36%) | 0.61 (0.36 to 1.04) | – | ||
| Age | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |||||
| < 40 | 61 (20.68%) | 38 (38.78%) | 23 (11.68%) | 1.00 (referent) | 1.00 (referent) | ||
| 40–60 | 177 (60.00%) | 52 (53.06%) | 125 (63.45%) | 0.20 (0.10 to 0.39) | 0.22 (0.11 to 0.43) | ||
| ≥ 60 | 57 (19.32%) | 8 (8.16%) | 49 (24.87%) | 0.09 (0.03 to 0.24) | 0.11 (0.04 to 0.30) | ||
| Tumour volume | < 0.001 | 0.01 | |||||
| Macro | 181 (61.36%) | 46 (46.94%) | 135 (68.53%) | 1.00 (referent) | 1.00 (referent) | ||
| Giant | 114 (38.64%) | 52 (53.06%) | 62 (31.47%) | 2.68 (1.55 to 4.62) | 2.15 (1.20 to 3.87) | ||
| Knosp grade | 0.022 | 0.349 | |||||
| 0 | 62 (21.02%) | 11 (11.22%) | 51 (25.89%) | 1.00 (referent) | – | ||
| 1 | 61 (20.68%) | 21 (21.43%) | 40 (20.31%) | 1.71 (0.63 to 4.67) | – | ||
| 2 | 41 (13.90%) | 13 (13.27%) | 28 (14.21%) | 2.31 (0.83 to 6.41) | – | ||
| 3 | 27 (9.15%) | 12 (12.24%) | 15 (7.61%) | 4.29 (1.45 to 12.65) | – | ||
| 4 | 104 (35.25%) | 41 (41.84%) | 63 (31.98%) | 3.56 (1.49 to 8.48) | – | ||
| Tumour resection rate | 0.003 | 0.254 | |||||
| Total | 143 (48.47%) | 38 (38.78%) | 105 (53.30%) | 1.00 (referent) | – | ||
| Subtotal | 60 (20.34%) | 16 (16.32%) | 44 (22.33%) | 1.15 (0.55 to 2.42) | – | ||
| Partial | 92 (31.19%) | 44 (44.90%) | 48 (24.37%) | 2.75 (1.50 to 5.04) | – | ||
OR, odds ratios; 95% CI, 95% confidence intervals; Micro, micro-adenoma; Macro, macro-adenoma; Giant, giant adenoma; Total, total resection; Subtotal, subtotal resection; Partial, partial resection
Fig. 4Distributions of the discriminant scores predicted by the model for the different groups. Box-and-whisker plot showing the distributions of the discriminant scores of the non-regrowth and regrowth groups in the overall fivefold cross-validation cases (a), the training (b) and testing set (c). The three different shapes (or colours) in the boxplot respectively indicates the patients who were correctly predicted and mis-predicted (false positive and false negative)
Fig. 5The regrowth prediction model in the training and testing sets. Two ROC curves showing the comparisons of the sensitivity and specificity for the prediction of regrowth in protein combining clinical signature and protein signature alone in the training (a) and testing set (b). The combination of protein and clinical signatures shows a better prediction accuracy than that of protein signature alone (P < 0.001)