| Literature DB >> 31443698 |
Liang Zeng1, Xiyun Deng2, Jingmin Zhong3, Li Yuan1, Xiaojun Tao4, Sai Zhang5, Yong Zeng6, Guangchun He7, Pingping Tan8, Yongguang Tao9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metastasis is responsible for the majority of deaths in a variety of cancer types, including breast cancer. Although several factors or biomarkers have been identified to predict the outcome of patients with breast cancer, few studies have been conducted to identify metastasis-associated biomarkers.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarker; Breast cancer; EpCAM; FADD; Metastasis; NDRG1; iTRAQ proteomic analysis; αB-crystallin
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31443698 PMCID: PMC6708189 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-6016-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Immunohistochemical analysis of the expression of four breast cancer metastasis-associated proteins. The expression levels of EpCAM, FADD, NDRG1, and αB-crystallin were evaluated by the immunohistochemical staining of paraffin-embedded paired primary and metastatic tissue sections that were obtained from patients with metastatic breast cancer
Summary of the expression of the four metastasis-associated proteins in the paired primary and metastatic tissues of breast cancer
The association between the four metastasis-associated proteins and the clinicopathological features of 190 breast cancer patients
Fig. 2The association between four metastasis-associated proteins and the overall survival of breast cancer patients. Kaplan-Meier plots of the association between the expression of EpCAM (a), FADD (b), NDRG1 (c), and αB-crystallin (d) and the overall survival probability of breast cancer patients
Fig. 3The association between four metastasis-associated proteins and the overall survival in breast cancer patients with metastasis. Kaplan-Meier plots of the association between the expression of EpCAM (a), FADD (b), NDRG1 (c), and αB-crystallin (d) and the overall survival probability in breast cancer patients with metastasis
Univariate and Multivariate Analysis by a Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Model in Cohort
| Variable | OS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| Age, years (> 45 vs. ≤ 45) | 0.898 (0.581–1.390) | 0.630 | NA | |
| ER (positive vs. negative) | 1.114 (0.711–1.745) | 0.637 | NA | |
| PR (positive vs. negative) | 1.213 (0.775–1.899) | 0.398 | NA | |
| CrebB-2 (positive vs. negative) | 1.128 (0.705–1.806) | 0.615 | NA | |
| Menstrual history (presence vs. absence) | 1.381 (0.851–2.241) | 0.191 | NA | |
| Operation | 0.649 | NA | ||
| Modified radical mastectomy vs. radical correction | 1.150 (0.727–1.820) | 0.550 | NA | |
| Other operation vs. radical correction | 0.642 (0.155–2.663) | 0.542 | NA | |
| FADD (positive vs. negative) | 1.580 (0.995–2.509) | 0.053 | NA | |
| NDRG1 (low vs. high) | 1.302 (0.762–2.226) | 0.335 | NA | |
| CRYAB (positive vs. negative) | 1.561 (0.902–2.701) | 0.112 | NA | |
| Tumor diameter, cm | 0.072 | NS | ||
| > 5 vs. > 2 and ≤ 5 | 1.923 (1.019–3.636) | 0.043 | ||
| > 5 vs. ≤2 | 2.230 (1.093–4.549) | 0.027 | ||
| TNM stage | < 0.0001 | NS | ||
| III vs. I | 4.329 (1.824–10.273) | 0.001 | ||
| III vs. II | 2.101 (1.333–3.311) | 0.001 | ||
| Histology stage (poorly differentiation vs. high-middle differentiation) | 2.286 (1.100–4.751) | 0.027 | NS | |
| Histology type (lobular carcinoma vs. duct carcinoma) | 1.720 (1.025–2.886) | 0.040 | 1.846 (1.093–3.118) |
|
| Lymph node metastasis (presence vs. absence) | 2.810 (1.694–4.662) | < 0.0001 | 2.801 (1.688–4.649) |
|
| EpCAM (positive vs. negative) | 2.306 (1.218–4.367) | 0.010 | 2.585 (1.351–4.944) |
|
Data in bold are P values < 0.05
Summary of the expression of CRYAB in different stages of breast tissues
| Tissue | TIS |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1–4 | 5–8 | 9–12 | ||
| Benign | 1 | 24 | 16 | 6 | 0.0003 |
| Non-metastatic | 46 | 28 | 6 | 3 | |
| Metastatic | 189 | 24 | 1 | 0 | |