| Literature DB >> 31528216 |
Wen-Hao Xu1,2, Yuan-Yuan Qu1,2, Jun Wang1,2, Hong-Kai Wang1,2, Fang-Ning Wan1,2, Jian-Yuan Zhao3, Hai-Liang Zhang1,2, Ding-Wei Ye1,2.
Abstract
Objective: Growing evidence has proved obesity one of the confirmed important etiologic indicators for renal cell carcinoma (RCC). CD36 is underpinned to be involved in adipose absorption, but its role in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the mRNA expression of CD36 in anthropometric measures of adipose tissue and defining its value in predicting prognosis in ccRCC patients.Entities:
Keywords: CD36; body mass index; clear cell renal cell carcinoma; subcutaneous adipose tissue; visceral adipose tissue
Year: 2019 PMID: 31528216 PMCID: PMC6746135 DOI: 10.7150/jca.30989
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Clinicopathological characteristics in relation to CD36 expression status.
| Variable | Entire group (n=367) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low expression (n=176) | Middle expression (n=124) | High expression (n=67) | |||
| Age at surgery (y, mean±SD) | 55.3±11.7 | 55.5±11.6 | 57.0±12.2 | 54.3±10.9 | 0.145 |
| Sex (n, %) | 0.860 | ||||
| Male | 248 (67.6) | 117 (66.5) | 84 (67.7) | 47 (70.1) | |
| Female | 119 (32.4) | 59 (33.5) | 40 (32.3) | 20 (29.9) | |
| BMI (kg/m2, mean±SD) | 1.5±0.5 | 1.5±0.5 | 1.6±0.5 | 1.4±0.5 | 0.092 |
| Clinical manifestation (n, %) | 0.829 | ||||
| Incidental | 246 (67.0) | 118 (67.0) | 85 (68.5) | 43 (64.2) | |
| Symptomatic | 121 (33.0) | 58 (33.0) | 39 (31.5) | 24 (35.8) | |
| Laterality (n, %) | 0.092 | ||||
| Left | 182 (49.6) | 92 (52.3) | 52 (41.9) | 38 (56.7) | |
| Right | 185 (50.4) | 84 (47.7) | 72 (58.1) | 29 (43.3) | |
| Tumor size (cm, mean±SD) | 5.2±2.4 | 4.9±2.6 | 5.5±2.4 | 5.1±1.8 | 0.051 |
| T stage at presentation (n, %) | 0.003 | ||||
| T1-T2 | 300 (81.7) | 150 (85.2) | 105 (84.7) | 45 (67.2) | |
| T3-T4 | 67 (18.3) | 26 (14.8) | 19 (15.3) | 22 (32.8) | |
| N stage at presentation (n, %) | <0.001 | ||||
| N0 | 326 (88.8) | 162 (92.0) | 115 (92.7) | 49 (73.1) | |
| N1 | 41 (11.2) | 14 (8.0) | 9 (7.3) | 18 (26.9) | |
| M stage at presentation (n, %) | <0.001 | ||||
| M0 | 330 (89.9) | 166 (94.3) | 112 (90.3) | 52 (77.6) | |
| M1 | 37 (10.1) | 10 (5.7) | 12 (9.7) | 15 (22.4) | |
| ISUP grade (n, %) | 0.023 | ||||
| 1-2 | 175 (47.7) | 92 (52.3) | 61 (49.2) | 22 (32.8) | |
| 3-4 | 192 (52.3) | 84 (47.7) | 63 (50.8) | 45 (67.2) | |
| Anthropometric measures of obesity on MRI (n=104, 28.3%) | |||||
| No. of Patients (%)* | 104 (100) | 59 (56.7) | 32 (30.8) | 13 (12.5) | |
| SAT (mm, mean±SD) | 33.2±9.3 | 35.1±10.7 | 30.9±7.0 | 30.5±4.1 | 0.058 |
| VAT (%, mean±SD) | 83.6±3.2 | 82.8±3.5 | 84.5±2.5 | 85.4±1.9 | 0.004 |
* % was calculated according to the row, for other variables % was calculated according to the column.
Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; SAT: subcutaneous adipose tissue; VAT: visceral adipose tissue.
Figure 1The quantity of anthropometric measures of SAT area was measured by MRI with T2-weighted sagittal localization images. All images were identified at the level of the umbilicus (approximately L4-L5 marked in orange dotted line) for 367 patients in supine position. A in maroon or P in blue represents measurement of the anterior or posterior abdominal adipose thickness respectively, and anteroposterior diameter (AP) was measured in green lines. The value of SAT was calculated as the sum of anterior abdominal fat and posterior abdominal fat (SAT=A+P). The visceral obesity percentage was defined as VAT%, which was calculated using the formula VAT%=[(AP-SAT)/AP]×100%.
Figure 2The percentage of different CD36 mRNA expression in patients with different T/N, which was define as the ratio of CD36 expression in ccRCC/Normal tissue in panel A. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses on different CD36 expression groups with PFS (B) and OS (C) in the included 367 ccRCC patients. Compared with middle and low CD36 expression, high CD36 expression is significantly correlated with poor PFS (p<0.01) and OS (p<0.01).
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses of PFS in 367 enrolled ccRCC patients.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covariates | HR (95%CI) | P value | HR (95%CI) | P value |
| Age at surgery | 1.006 (0.993-1.019) | 0.336 | ||
| Sex (male vs. female) | 0.774 (0.567-1.058) | 0.108 | 0.837 (0.605-1.160) | 0.286 |
| BMI (<25kg/m2 vs. ≥25kg/m2) | 1.227 (0.911-1.652) | 0.178 | ||
| Clinical manifestation (incidental vs. symptomatic) | 1.010 (0.751-1.359) | 0.945 | 0.970 (0.711-1.324) | 0.848 |
| Laterality (left vs. right) | 1.053 (0.795-1.393) | 0.720 | 1.008 (0.755-1.345) | 0.957 |
| Tumor size | 1.033 (0.979-1.090) | 0.233 | 1.049 (0.987-1.115) | 0.121 |
| T stage (T1-T2 vs. T3-T4) | ||||
| N stage (N0 vs. N1) | ||||
| M stage (M0 vs. M1) | ||||
| ISUP grade (1-2 vs. 3-4) | 1.544 (0.867-2.750) | 0.140 | ||
Abbreviations: PFS: progression free survival; ccRCC: clear cell renal cell carcinoma; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; BMI: body mass index; ISUP: International Society of Urological Patheology.
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses of OS in 367 enrolled ccRCC patients.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covariates | HR (95%CI) | P value | HR (95%CI) | P value | |
| Age at surgery | 1.015 (0.999-1.030) | 0.053 | |||
| Sex (male vs. female) | 0.922 (0.639-1.331) | 0.665 | 1.028 (0.698-1.514) | 0.889 | |
| BMI (<25kg/m2 vs. ≥25kg/m2) | 1.255 (0.892-1.766) | 0.192 | 1.082 (0.751-1.559) | 0.673 | |
| Clinical manifestation (incidental vs. symptomatic) | 0.968 (0.674-1.391) | 0.861 | 0.943 (0.644-1.379) | 0.761 | |
| Laterality (left vs. right) | 1.030 (0.735-1.443) | 0.866 | 0.873 (0.615-1.238) | 0.446 | |
| Tumor size | 0.995 (0.928-1.067) | 0.890 | 1.025 (0.947-1.109) | 0.542 | |
| T stage (T1-T2 vs. T3-T4) | |||||
| N stage (N0 vs. N1) | |||||
| M stage (M0 vs. M1) | |||||
| ISUP grade (1-2 vs. 3-4) | 1.384 (0.772-2.481) | 0.276 | |||
Abbreviations: OS: overall survival; ccRCC: clear cell renal cell carcinoma; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; BMI: body mass index; ISUP: International Society of Urological Pathology.
Figure 3Scatterplots of the ratio of CD36 mRNA expression in ccRCC/Normal tissues compared with BMI (A), VAT% (B) and SAT (C). Locally weighted scatterplot smoothing curves were fitted in plots. Pearson's correlation coefficient shows the T/N ratio was positively correlated with the BMI (r=0.117, p=0.025), VAT% (r=0.465, p<0.001) and negatively correlated with SAT (r=-0.296, p=0.002). VAT%: visceral obesity percentage; SAT: subcutaneous adipose tissue.
Figure 4Datasets from public online database were implemented with GSEA method. For each separate analysis, Student's-t-test statistical score was performed in consistent pathways and the mean of the differential expression genes was calculated. A permutation test with 1000 times was used to identify the significantly changed pathways. The adjusted P values (adj. P) using Benjamini and Hochberg (BH) false discovery rate (FDR) method by default were applied to correct for the occurrence of false positive results. The significant related genes were defined with an adj. P less than 0.01 and a FDR less than 0.25.