| Literature DB >> 31293636 |
Jialei Sun1,2, Chenhao Zhou2,3, Qianni Ma1,2, Wanyong Chen3,4, Manar Atyah3, Yirui Yin3, Peiyao Fu3, Shuang Liu3, Bo Hu3, Ning Ren3,4, Haijun Zhou1,2.
Abstract
Glutamate-cysteine ligase catalytic subunit (GCLC) has been reported to overexpress in a variety types of cancer and be related with tumor progression and drug resistance. However, little has been known about GCLC's prognostic significance and biological roles in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In the present study, we evaluated GCLC expression level using immunohistochemical staining (IHC) in tissue microarray (TMA) containing paired tumor and peritumoral liver tissues from 168 patients with HCC who received curative resection. GCLC levels in tumor tissues were significantly higher than in peritumoral liver tissues, and tumor GCLC level was associated with overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Five-year OS and DFS rates were 41.15% and 25.88% for the group with high tumor GCLC level, compared with 68.09% and 47.51% for the group with low tumor GCLC level (P<0.001 and P=0.001, respectively). Moreover, quantitative reverse transcription PCR (qRT-PCR) analysis demonstrated that GCLC was transcriptionally activated in HCC tissues when comparing with peritumoral tissues. Tumor GCLC level, which correlated to tumor differentiation, microvascular invasion and BCLC stage, was independent prognostic factors for both OS (P=0.006) and DFS (P=0.003). Importantly, tumor GCLC level was still significantly associated with OS and DFS in patients with early HCC. GCLC-based nomogram models were further established and exhibit significantly higher predictive accuracy as compared with routine clinical staging systems. In conclusion, tumor GCLC is a potential prognostic biomarker for HCC patients after receiving curative resection.Entities:
Keywords: GCLC; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Nomogram; Prognosis; Survival analysis
Year: 2019 PMID: 31293636 PMCID: PMC6603424 DOI: 10.7150/jca.29769
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Figure 1GCLC is overexpressed in HCC tissues as compared with peritumoral tissues. (A)Representative IHC staining of GCLC in HCC and peritumoral tissues, respectively. Scale bar: 500µm (upper lane) and 50µm (lower lane). (B)Percentage of negative, weak, moderate and strong GCLC expression levels in HCC and peritumoral tissues. (C)The comparison between GCLC mRNA level in HCC and peritumoral tissues. GAPDH is set as internal control. P<0.05 is considered as statistically significant, paired Student t test. (D, E) qRT-PCR and immunoblotting analysis of GCLC expression in HCC cell lines and nontransformed hepatic cell line. (F)Representative immunofluorescence images of GCLC in HCC cell lines and nontransformed hepatic cell line. Green fluorescence: GCLC, blue fluorescence: nucleus. Scale bar: 50µm.
Correlation between tumor GCLC level and clinicopathologic characteristics in HCC patients.
| Characteristics | Patients | Tumor GCLC level | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number (%) | Low (n=79) | High (n=89) | |||
| Age, years | ≤50 | 73(43.45) | 33 | 40 | 0.756 |
| >50 | 95(56.55) | 46 | 49 | ||
| Gender | Female | 21(12.5) | 11 | 10 | 0.646 |
| Male | 147(87.5) | 68 | 79 | ||
| HbsAg | Negative | 27(16.07) | 12 | 15 | 0.835 |
| Positive | 141(83.93) | 67 | 74 | ||
| AFP, ng/ml | ≤20 | 60(35.71) | 31 | 29 | 0.421 |
| >20 | 111(64.29) | 48 | 60 | ||
| CEA, ng/ml | ≤5 | 155(92.26) | 75 | 80 | 0.259 |
| >5 | 13(7.74) | 4 | 9 | ||
| CA19-9, U/ml | ≤36 | 130(77.38) | 61 | 69 | 1 |
| >36 | 38(22.62) | 18 | 20 | ||
| ALT, U/L | ≤40 | 98(58.33) | 46 | 52 | 1 |
| >40 | 70(41.67) | 33 | 37 | ||
| AST, U/L | ≤37 | 118(70.24) | 56 | 62 | 1 |
| >37 | 50(29.76) | 23 | 27 | ||
| γ-GT, U/L | ≤54 | 69(41.07) | 38 | 31 | 0.087 |
| >54 | 99(58.93) | 41 | 58 | ||
| Ascites | Absent | 159(94.64) | 75 | 84 | 1 |
| Present | 9(5.36) | 4 | 5 | ||
| Liver cirrhosis | No | 28(16.67) | 13 | 15 | 1 |
| Yes | 140(83.33) | 66 | 74 | ||
| Tumor number | Single | 140(83.33) | 70 | 70 | 0.991 |
| Multiple | 28(16.67) | 9 | 19 | ||
| Tumor size, cm | ≤5 | 84(50) | 37 | 47 | 0.537 |
| >5 | 84(50) | 42 | 42 | ||
| Tumor encapsulation | Complete | 91(54.17) | 45 | 46 | 0.537 |
| None | 77(45.83) | 34 | 43 | ||
| Tumor differentiation | I-II | 104(61.9) | 58 | 46 | |
| III-IV | 64(38.1) | 21 | 43 | ||
| Microvascular invasion | Absent | 95(56.55) | 52 | 43 | |
| Present | 73(43.45) | 27 | 46 | ||
| Child classification | A | 158(94.05) | 75 | 83 | 0.751 |
| B+C | 10(5.95) | 4 | 6 | ||
| BCLC stage | 0+A | 83(49.4) | 47 | 36 | |
| B+C | 85(50.6) | 32 | 53 | ||
| TMN stage | I+II | 126(75) | 64 | 62 | 0.109 |
| III+IV | 42(25) | 15 | 27 | ||
Abbreviations: HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; AFP, α-fetoprotein; CEA: carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9: carbohydrate antigen 19-9; ALT: alanine aminotransferase; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; γ-GT, γ-glutamyl transferase; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; TNM, tumor-nodes-metastasis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, Pearson χ2 tests.
Figure 2High tumor GCLC level predicts poor clinical outcome in HCC patients. Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in (A, B) all cases (n=168), (C, D) BCLC stage 0-A subgroup (n=83), (E, F) TNM stage I-II subgroup (n=126). OS and DFS are analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method using the log-rank test. P<0.05 is considered as statistically significant. BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system. TNM, Tumor Node Metastasis staging system of AJCC 7th edition.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of clinicopathological factors with OS and DFS in HCC patients.
| OS | DFS | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | |||
| Variables | HR(95% CI) | HR(95% CI) | ||||
| Age, years (>50 vs. ≤50) | 0.093 | NS | 0.824 | NS | ||
| Gender (male vs. female) | 0.751 | NS | 0.113 | NS | ||
| HBsAg (positive vs. negative) | 0.201 | NS | 0.388 | NS | ||
| AFP, ng/ml (>20 vs. ≤20) | ||||||
| CEA, ng/ml (>5 vs. ≤5) | 0.28 | NS | 0.344 | NS | ||
| CA19-9, U/ml (>36 vs. ≤36) | NA | |||||
| ALT, U/L (>40 vs. ≤40) | 0.278 | NS | NA | |||
| AST, U/L (>37 vs. ≤37) | NA | NA | ||||
| γ-GT, U/L (>54 vs. ≤54) | ||||||
| Ascites (present vs. absent) | 0.068 | NS | ||||
| Liver cirrhosis (yes vs. no) | 0.937 | NS | 0.878 | NS | ||
| Tumor number (multiple vs. single) | 0.946 | NS | 0.071 | NS | ||
| Tumor size, cm (>5 vs. ≤5) | ||||||
| Tumor encapsulation (complete vs. none) | 0.058 | NS | 0.077 | NS | ||
| Tumor differentiation (III-IV vs. I-II) | NA | 0.06 | NS | |||
| Microvascular invasion (present vs. absent) | NA | 0.108 | NS | |||
| Tumor GCLC level (high vs. low) | ||||||
Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; DFS disease-free survival; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; AFP: αfetoprotein; CEA: carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9: carbohydrate antigen 19-9; ALT: alanine aminotransferase; AST: aspartate aminotransferase; γ-GT, γ-glutamyl transferase; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidential interval; NA, not adopted; NS, not significant. Data obtained from the Cox proportional hazards model, P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
Figure 3Tumor GCLC level is associated with 5-year OS and DFS in patients with early-HCC. Hazard ratios (HR) of tumor GCLC level for overall survival and disease-free survival in different subgroups of HCC patients. The HRs of tumor GCLC level for (A) 5-year OS and (B) DFS are obtained by comparing the patients with high tumor GCLC level with those with low tumor GCLC level. HR>1.0 is considered as a poorer outcome. BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system. TNM, Tumor Node Metastasis staging system of AJCC 7th edition.
Figure 4Prognostic nomograms and calibration curves and decision curve analysis. Nomogram predicted OS (A) and DFS (D) for HCC patients. To get the probability of OS or DFS, a vertical line from the factors to the points scale first was draw and a point for each factor then was obtain. The points of all factors was summed up to get a total points. Finally, a vertical line from the total point scale to the probability scale was drawn and the probability of OS or DFS was gotten. Calibration curves for 3- and 5- year OS (B, C) and 3- and 5- year DFS (E, F) was shown. Probability of OS or DFS predicted by nomograms is plotted on the X axis and the observed OS or DFS is plotted on the Y axis. Decision curve analyses show the clinical benefit among different models. Nomogram-predicted probabilities of 3-year OS and DFS (G, H), 5-year OS and DFS (I, J) are compared with routine staging system. Dashed lines: clinical net benefits across a range of threshold probabilities; the horizontal solid black line: to assume no patients will experience the event; the solid gray line: to assume all patients will experience the event. BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system. TNM, Tumor Node Metastasis staging system of AJCC 7th edition.
Discriminatory capabilities of nomogram and independent prognostic factors in patients with HCC: C-indices in OS and DFS prediction.
| Variables | Overall survival | Disease-free survival | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C-index(95% CI) | C-index(95% CI) | ||||
| GCLC | 0.591 (0.538-0.644) | 0.577 (0.530-0.624) | |||
| TNM | 0.582 (0.533-0.631) | 0.594 (0.553-0.635) | |||
| TNM + GCLC | 0.637 (0.577-0.697) | 0.071† | 0.636 (0.583-0.689) | 0.220† | |
| BCLC | 0.542 (0.487-0.597) | 0.545 (0.497-0.593) | |||
| BCLC + GCLC | 0.604 (0.544-0.664) | 0.009† | 0.594 (0.539-0.649) | 0.021† | |
| Nomogram | 0.701 (0.645-0.757) | 0.707 (0.658-0.756) | |||
| Nomogram vs. TNM | < 0.001‡ | < 0.001‡ | |||
| Nomogram vs. BCLC | < 0.001‡ | < 0.001‡ | |||
Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; DFS, disease-free survival; C-index, concordance index; CI, confidence interval; TNM, Tumor-Nodes-Metastases; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer.
†: Compared the C-index with the original model with or without GCLC expression data; ‡: Compared the C-index of nomogram with TNM stage and BCLC stage in patients with HCC.