| Literature DB >> 31819628 |
Chengcheng Zhu1, Huafeng Ding1, Junwen Yang1, Yihui Zhou1, Yonghong Luo1, Suhua Shi1, Ying Zhang1, Yalan Wei2, Guantai Ni1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Proline hydroxylase 2 (PHD2) is involved in tumorigenesis. This study aimed to examine PHD2 and hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) expression in different endometrial tissues and explore the correlations between PHD2 and HIF-1α expression with clinicopathological characteristics of endometrial cancer.Entities:
Keywords: endometrial cancer; hypoxia-inducible factor; prognosis; proline hydroxylase
Year: 2019 PMID: 31819628 PMCID: PMC6878929 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S223421
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Figure 1PHD2 and HIF-1α mRNA expression in normal endometrium, atypical endometrial hyperplasia, and endometrial cancer. (A) PHD2 expression was reduced in endometrial cancer compared with normal endometrium (p<0.05, chi-square test). (B) The expression of HIF-1α was elevated in endometrial carcinoma compared with normal endometrium (p<0.05, chi-square test).
Figure 2Western blot analysis of PHD2 and HIF-1α protein expression in normal endometrium, atypical endometrial hyperplasia, and endometrial cancer. (A) PHD2 expression was reduced in endometrial cancer compared with normal endometrium (p<0.05, chi-square test). (B) HIF-1α expression was elevated in endometrial cancer compared with normal endometrium (p<0.05, chi-square test). Each protein sample analysis was repeated in triplicate.
Figure 3Immunohistochemical staining of PHD2 in endometrial tissues. (A) High expression of PHD2 in normal endometrium (×400); (B) moderate expression of PHD2 in atypical endometrial hyperplasia (×400); (C) low expression of PHD2 in endometrial cancer (×400); (D) low expression of HIF-1α in normal endometrium (×400); (E) moderate expression of HIF-1α in atypical endometrial hyperplasia (×400); (F) high expression of HIF-1α in endometrial cancer (×400).
PHD2 Staining in Endometrial Tissues
| Variables | n | HIF-1α | p | PHD2 | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| + (%) | – (%) | + (%) | – (%) | ||||
| Normal endometrium | 30 | 5 (16.7) | 25 (83.3) | <0.05 | 26 (86.7) | 4 (13.3) | <0.05 |
| Atypical endometrial Hyperplasia | 30 | 12 (40.0) | 18 (60.0) | 21 (70.0) | 9 (30.0) | ||
| Endometrial cancer | 50 | 41 (82.0) | 9 (18.0) | 14 (28.0) | 36 (72.0) | ||
Note: The comparison was made by chi-square test.
Relationship of PHD2 and HIF-1α Expression with Clinicopathologic Characteristics of EC
| Variables | n | HIF-1α | p | PHD2 | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| + (%) | – (%) | + (%) | – (%) | ||||
| Histologic grade | 0.232 | 0.439 | |||||
| Well | 22 | 16 (72.7) | 6 (27.3) | 5 (22.7) | 17 (77.3) | ||
| Moderate | 15 | 13 (86.7) | 2 (13.7) | 6 (40.0) | 9 (60.0) | ||
| Poor | 13 | 12 (92.3) | 1 (7.7) | 3 (23.1) | 10 (76.9) | ||
| Depth of stromal infiltration | 0.733 | 0.171 | |||||
| >1/2 | 22 | 19 (86.4) | 3 (13.6) | 4 (18.2) | 18 (81.8) | ||
| ≤1/2 | 28 | 22 (78.6) | 6 (21.4) | 10 (35.7) | 18 (64.3) | ||
| LVSI | 0.032 | 0.015 | |||||
| Yes | 28 | 26 (92.8) | 2 (7.2) | 4 (14.3) | 24 (85.7) | ||
| No | 22 | 15 (68.2) | 7 (31.8) | 10 (45.5) | 12 (54.5) | ||
| Tumor size (diameter) | 0.560 | 0.310 | |||||
| >2 cm | 46 | 38 (82.6) | 8 (17.4) | 12 (26.1) | 34 (73.9) | ||
| ≤2 cm | 4 | 3 (75.0) | 1 (25.0) | 2 (50.0) | 2 (50.0) | ||
| FIGO stage | 0.015 | 0.012 | |||||
| I–II | 36 | 33 (91.7) | 3 (8.3) | 6 (16.7) | 30 (83.3) | ||
| III | 14 | 8 (57.1) | 6 (42.9) | 8 (57.1) | 6 (42.9) | ||
| Lymph node metastasis | 0.015 | 0.012 | |||||
| Yes | 36 | 33 (91.7) | 3 (8.3) | 6 (16.7) | 30 (83.3) | ||
| No | 14 | 8 (57.1) | 6 (42.9) | 8 (57.1) | 6 (42.9) | ||
Note: The comparison was made by chi-square test.