| Literature DB >> 31692588 |
Jiewei Chen1,2, Jun Liu1,2, Xiaoting Chen1,2, Yong Li1,2, Zizi Li3, Chengchao Shen1,2, Keming Chen1,2, Xinke Zhang1,2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: ZMYND8 is closely correlated with cancerous proliferation and invasiveness. However, its prognostic value has not been estimated in a nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). The purpose of this study was to elucidate the status of ZMYND8 expression and its prognostic significance in NPCs.Entities:
Keywords: ZMYND8; nasopharyngeal carcinoma; prognosis
Year: 2019 PMID: 31692588 PMCID: PMC6713802 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S210305
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Correlation between the ZMYND8 expression and clincopathological variables in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients
| ZMYND8 expression | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | Low | High | ||
| 0.617 | ||||
| Female | 53 | 13 (24.5%) | 40 (75.5%) | |
| Male | 137 | 29 (21.2%) | 108 (78.8%) | |
| 0.080 | ||||
| ≤46 | 95 | 16 (16.8%) | 79 (83.2%) | |
| >46 | 95 | 26 (27.4%) | 69 (72.6%) | |
| 0.550 | ||||
| I-II | 33 | 6 (18.2%) | 27 (81.8%) | |
| III-IV | 157 | 36 (22.9%) | 121 (77.1%) | |
| 0.028 | ||||
| T1 + T2 | 63 | 8 (12.7%) | 55 (87.3%) | |
| T3 + T4 | 127 | 34 (26.8%) | 93 (73.2%) | |
| 0.605 | ||||
| N0 | 27 | 7 (25.9%) | 20 (74.1%) | |
| N1 + N2 + N3 | 163 | 35 (21.5%) | 128 (78.5%) | |
| 0.611 | ||||
| M0 | 183 | 41 (22.4%) | 142 (77.6%) | |
| M1 | 7 | 1 (14.3%) | 6 (85.7%) | |
| 0.573 | ||||
| Presence | 47 | 9 (19.1%) | 38 (80.9%) | |
| Absence | 143 | 33 (23.1%) | 110 (76.9%) | |
| 0.867 | ||||
| ① | 56 | 13 (23.2%) | 43 (76.8%) | |
| ② | 82 | 16 (19.5%) | 66 (80.5%) | |
| ③ | 22 | 6 (27.3%) | 16 (72.7%) | |
| ④ | 30 | 7 (23.3%) | 23 (76.7%) | |
Notes: ①, Radiotherapy; ②, chemoradiotherapy; ③, radiotherapy + induce; ④, chemoradiotherapy + induce.
Figure 1Expression of ZMYND8 protein in nasopharyngeal carcinoma tissue. Negative expression: (A) 10×); (E) 20×.; Weak expression: (B) 10×; (F) 20×.; Moderate expression: (C) 10×;, (G) 20×). ; Strong expression: (D) 10×; (H) 20×), .
Figure 2ROC-curve analysis of cutoff for high and low expression of ZMYND8 protein in nasopharyngeal carcinoma by various clinical parameters.
Notes: Sensitivity and specificity for each clinical parameter is plotted, with corresponding ROC curves for ZMYND8 scores. Cutoff values corresponding to points on curves closest to 0 and 1), meaning that the point had both maximum sensitivity and specificity. Green lines are reference lines and blue lines are movements in different cutoff values of corresponding curves by sensitivity (y-axis and 1 – specificity (y-axis). Survival status (A); clinical stage (B); relapse (C); T stage (D); M stage (E); N stage (F).
Univariate analysis of different prognostic factors in 190 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma
| All cases | Mean survival (months) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.873 | 0.171 | |||
| Female | 53 | 153.3 | ||
| Male | 137 | 133.76 | ||
| 2.167 | 0.141 | |||
| ≤46 | 95 | 148.19 | ||
| >46 | 95 | 129.25 | ||
| 6.945 | 0.008 | |||
| I–II | 33 | 163.93 | ||
| III–IV | 157 | 134.15 | ||
| 5.966 | 0.015 | |||
| T1 + T2 | 63 | 158.87 | ||
| T3 + T4 | 127 | 129.89 | ||
| 7.666 | 0.006 | |||
| N0 | 27 | 170.1 | ||
| N1 + N2 + N3 | 163 | 134.09 | ||
| 2.764 | 0.096 | |||
| M0 | 183 | 142.04 | ||
| M1 | 7 | 70.43 | ||
| 40.989 | <0.001 | |||
| Presence | 47 | 92.14 | ||
| Absence | 143 | 156.55 | ||
| 1.935 | 0.164 | |||
| ① | 56 | 124.84 | ||
| ② | 82 | 150.05 | ||
| ③ | 22 | 143.03 | ||
| ④ | 30 | 91.96 | ||
| 15.279 | <0.001 | |||
| Low | 42 | 92.29 | ||
| High | 148 | 150.72 |
Notes: ①, Radiotherapy; ②, chemoradiotherapy; ③, radiotherapy + induce; ④, chemoradiotherapy + induce.
Figure 3Kaplan–Meier survival analysis of associations between clinicopathological factors and overall survival (OS) in 190 patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (A–F).
Univariate and multivariate analysis of ZMYND8 associated with relapse-free survival in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| Age, years (>46 vs ≤46) | 0.940 (0.529–1.669) | 0.832 | ||
| Sex | 1.249 (0.648–2.408) | 0.506 | ||
| Clinical stage (III–IV vs I–II) | 2.169 (0.857–5.489) | 0.102 | ||
| Therapy regimen (① + ② vs ③ + ④) | 0.888 (0.659–1.197) | 0.435 | ||
| T stage (T3 + T4 vs T1 + T2) | 1.189 (0.643–2.198) | 0.582 | ||
| N stage (N1 + N2 + N3 vs N0) | 3.299 (1.022–10.646) | 0.046 | 3.108 (0.960–10.067) | 0.059 |
| M stage (M1 vs M0) | 4.029 (1.423–11.409) | 0.009 | 3.566 (1.256–10.122) | 0.017 |
| ZMYND8 expression (high vs low) | 1.091 (0.526–2.264) | 0.815 | ||
Notes: ①, Radiotherapy; ②, chemoradiotherapy; ③, radiotherapy + induce; ④, chemoradiotherapy + induce.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of ZMYND8 associated with overall survival in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | HR (95% CI) | |||
| Age, years (>46 vs ≤46) | 1.525 (0.865–2.689) | 0.145 | ||
| Sex | 1.596 (0.811–3.141) | 0.176 | ||
| Relapse (presence vs absence) | 5.310 (2.999–9.399) | <0.001 | 5.399 (3.029–9.624) | <0.001 |
| Clinical stage (III–IV vs I–II) | 4.227 (1.313–13.603) | 0.016 | 3.258 (0.877–12.109) | 0.078 |
| Therapy regimen (① + ② vs ③ + ④) | 0.795 (0.573–1.101) | 0.167 | ||
| T stage (T3 + T4 vs T1 + T2) | 2.319 (1.156–4.652) | 0.018 | 1.178 (0.533–2.605) | 0.685 |
| N stage (N1 + N2 + N3 vs N0) | 5.838 (1.414–24.095) | 0.075 | ||
| M stage (M1 vs M0) | 2.613 (0.804–8.493) | 0.110 | ||
| ZMYND8 expression (high vs low) | 0.331 (0.185–0.593) | <0.001 | 0.300 (0.164–0.547) | <0.001 |
Notes: ①, Radiotherapy; ②, chemoradiotherapy; ③, radiotherapy + induce; ④, chemoradiotherapy + induce.