| Literature DB >> 31113446 |
Jun Li1,2, Huiran Yue1,2, Hailin Yu1,2, Xin Lu1,2, Xiaohong Xue3,4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to analyzed the expression pattern of sirtuin(SIRT) superfamily and evaluated their prognostic values in serous ovarian cancer patients.Entities:
Keywords: Nomogram; Ovarian cancer; Prognosis; SIRT3; Sirtuin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31113446 PMCID: PMC6530022 DOI: 10.1186/s13048-019-0524-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ovarian Res ISSN: 1757-2215 Impact factor: 4.234
Fig. 1Differential Expression of SIRT members between FTE and PSOCs/PSTCs. (a-g) There was no significant difference in the expression of SIRT1 (a), SIRT2 (b), SIRT4 (d), SIRT6 (f), and SIRT7 (g) between FTE and PSOCs/PSTCs. SIRT3 (c) and SIRT5 (e) expression were significantly decreased and increased in PSOCs/PSTCs compared with that in normal counterparts, respectively
Fig. 2Differential Expression of SIRT members between PSOCs and paired omental metastases. (a-g) There was no significant difference in the expression of SIRT1 (a), SIRT(b), SIRT3 (c), SIRT4 (d), and SIRT5 (e) between PSOCs and paired omental metastases. SIRT6 (f) and SIRT7 (g) were significantly overexpressed in ometal metastases compared with corresponding primary counterparts
The associations of each SIRT member’s expression with RFS and OS
| Variables | Number of patients | RFS | OS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||||
| HR (95%CI) | HR (95%CI) | HR (95%CI) | HR (95%CI) | ||||||
| Age | 462 | 1.003 (0.991–1.014) | 0.661 | / | / | 1.024 (1.013–1.036) | < 0.001 | 1.023 (1.011–1.034) | < 0.001 |
| Stage | 0.015 | 0.016 | 0.001 | 0.005 | |||||
| Early | 33 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Late | 429 | 2.003 (1.144–3.506) | 1.986 (1.134–3.477) | 3.478 (1.639–7.381) | 2.995 (1.392–6.446) | ||||
| Grade | 0.254 | / | 0.048 | 0.196 | |||||
| Low | 57 | 1 | / | 1 | 1 | ||||
| High | 405 | 1.227 (0.863–1.745) | / | 1.438 (1.003–2.063) | 1.280 (0.881–1859) | ||||
| Debulking | 0.886 | / | 0.030 | 0.540 | |||||
| Optimal | 344 | 1 | / | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Suboptimal | 118 | 0.979 (0.734–1.306) | / | 1.353 (1.030–1.776) | 0.915 (0.689–1.216) | ||||
| SIRT1 | 462 | 0.824 (0.662–1.026) | 0.084 | / | / | 0.907 (0.727–1.131) | 0.386 | / | / |
| SIRT2 | 462 | 1.061 (0.814–1.384) | 0.660 | / | / | 1.187 (0.925–1.522) | 0.178 | / | / |
| SIRT3 | 462 | 1.043 (0.690–1.576) | 0.841 | / | / | 0.661 (0.438–0.996) | 0.048 | 0.588 (0.389–0.889) | 0.012 |
| SIRT4 | 462 | 0.629 (0.385–1.028) | 0.064 | / | / | 0.627 (0.374–1.052) | 0.077 | / | / |
| SIRT5 | 462 | 1.013 (0.856–1.199) | 0.879 | / | / | 0.815 (0.688–0.967) | 0.019 | 0.882 (0.742–1.049) | 0.157 |
| SIRT6 | 462 | 1.102 (0.697–1.744) | 0.677 | / | / | 0.794 (0.505–1.249) | 0.318 | / | / |
| SIRT7 | 462 | 0.786 (0.620–0.997) | 0.047 | 0.791 (0.624–1.003) | 0.053 | 0.760 (0.595–0.969) | 0.027 | 0.786 (0.613–1.008) | 0.058 |
Fig. 3The SIRT3-related nomogram developed from TCGA dataset. The nomogram illustrated age at initial diagnosis as sharing the largest contribution to OS, followed by SIRT3 expression and FIGO stage. Histological grade and debulking status had a moderate impact on the OS
Fig. 4Calibration plots of the SIRT3-related nomogram to predict OS. (a-c) Calibration curves of the SIRT3-related nomogram to predict OS at 1 year (a), 3 years (b), and 5 years (c) in TCGA dataset. (d-f) Calibration curves of the SIRT3-related nomogram to predict OS at 1 year (d), 3 years (e), and 5 years (f) in GSE9891 dataset