| Literature DB >> 31926112 |
Yongmei Yang1,2, Ailin Qu1,2, Qi Wu3, Xin Zhang1,2, Lili Wang1,2, Chen Li4, Zhaogang Dong1,2, Lutao Du4, Chuanxin Wang4.
Abstract
Hypoxia has been particularly associated with poor prognosis in cancer patients. Recent studies have suggested that hypoxia-related miRNAs play a critical role in various cancers, including colorectal cancer (CRC). In the present study, we found 52 differentially expressed miRNAs in HT-29 cells under hypoxic conditions versus normoxic conditions by analyzing the profiles of miRNAs. Using Cox model, we developed a hypoxia-related miRNA signature consisting of four miRNAs, which could successfully discriminate high-risk patients in the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) training cohort (n=381). The prognostic value of this signature was further confirmed in the TCGA testing cohort (n=190) and an independent validation cohort composed of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded clinical CRC samples (n=220), respectively. Multivariable Cox regression and stratified survival analysis revealed this signature was an independent prognostic factor for CRC patients. Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of this signature was significantly larger than that of any other clinical risk factors or single miRNA alone. A nomogram was constructed for clinical use, which incorporated both the miRNA signature and clinical risk factors and performed well in the calibration plots. Collectively, this novel hypoxia-related miRNA signature was an independent prognostic factor, and it possessed a stronger predictive power in identifying high-risk CRC patients than currently used clinicopathological features.Entities:
Keywords: colorectal cancer; hypoxia microRNA signature; nomogram; prediction; prognosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31926112 PMCID: PMC6977676 DOI: 10.18632/aging.102228
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging (Albany NY) ISSN: 1945-4589 Impact factor: 5.682
Baseline clinical and pathological characteristics in our study.
| Gender | 0.081 | ||||||||||
| Female | 184 | 25 (42.4%) | 159 (49.4%) | 80 | 11 (35.5%) | 69 (43.4%) | 117 | 15 (45.5%) | 102 (54.5%) | ||
| Male | 197 | 34 (57.6%) | 163 (50.6%) | 110 | 20 (64.5%) | 90 (56.6%) | 103 | 18 (54.5%) | 85 (45.5%) | ||
| Agea | 0.943 | ||||||||||
| ≥61 | 213 | 40 (67.8%) | 173 (53.7%) | 104 | 16 (51.6%) | 88 (55.3%) | 124 | 22 (66.7%) | 102 (54.5%) | ||
| <61 | 168 | 19 (32.2%) | 149 (46.3%) | 86 | 15 (48.4%) | 71 (44.7%) | 96 | 11 (33.3%) | 85 (45.5%) | ||
| Tumor location | 0.262 | ||||||||||
| Colon | 276 | 40 (67.8%) | 236 (73.3%) | 142 | 18 (58.1%) | 124 (78%) | 149 | 18 (54.5%) | 131 (70.1%) | ||
| Rectum | 105 | 19 (32.2%) | 86 (26.7%) | 48 | 13 (41.9%) | 35 (22.0%) | 71 | 15 (45.5%) | 56 (29.9%) | ||
| Lymph node examined count | 0.101 | ||||||||||
| 12 or more | 334 | 51 (89.5%) | 283 (94.6%) | 183 | 29 (93.5%) | 154 (98.7%) | 199 | 31 (93.9%) | 168 (96%) | ||
| Less than 12 | 22 | 6 (10.5%) | 16 (5.4%) | 4 | 2 (6.5%) | 2 (1.3%) | 9 | 2 (6.1%) | 7 (4.0%) | ||
| CEA | 0.697 | ||||||||||
| Abnormal | 90 | 12 (38.7%) | 78 (36.8%) | 46 | 11 (50%) | 35 (33%) | 60 | 11 (50%) | 49 (38.9%) | ||
| Normal | 153 | 19 (61.3%) | 134 (63.2%) | 82 | 11 (50.0%) | 71 (67.0%) | 88 | 11 (50.0%) | 77 (61.1%) | ||
| stage | 0.212 | ||||||||||
| Stage I | 74 | 4 (7.1%) | 70 (22.2%) | 25 | 1 (3.4%) | 24 (15.8%) | 36 | 1 (3.1%) | 35 (19.3%) | ||
| Stage II | 138 | 19 (33.9%) | 119 (37.8%) | 63 | 12 (41.4%) | 51 (33.6%) | 90 | 23 (71.9%) | 67 (37.0%) | ||
| Stage III | 101 | 20 (35.7%) | 81 (25.7%) | 67 | 14 (48.3%) | 53 (34.9%) | 52 | 6 (18.8%) | 46 (25.4%) | ||
| Stage IV | 58 | 13 (23.2%) | 45 (14.3%) | 26 | 2 (6.9%) | 24 (15.8%) | 35 | 2 (6.2%) | 33 (18.2%) |
P*: the difference between the training cohort, test cohort and validation cohort was examined using Pearson’s Chi-squared test.
a The average age was 61.
Figure 1Study flowchart.
Figure 2Identification of a four-miRNA signature was significantly associated with OS of CRC patients in the training cohort. (A–C) Risk score distribution, survival status, and miRNA expression patterns for patients in high-risk and low-risk groups by the miRNA signature. (D) Kaplan-Meier curve analysis of OS of CRC patients in high-risk and low-risk groups. (E) Time-dependent ROC curves analysis. We used AUCs at 3 and 5 years to assess the prognostic accuracy, and calculated P values using the log-rank test.
Figure 3Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and time-dependent ROC curves of the miRNA signature in the testing cohort, entire TCGA cohort and independent validation cohort. (A, B) Internal testing cohort. (C, D) Entire TCGA cohort. (E, F) Independent validation cohort. We used AUCs at 3 and 5 years to assess prognostic accuracy, and calculated P values using the log-rank test.
Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis of factors associated with OS in all 791 patients.
| Gender | ||||||
| Male vs female | 1.125 | 0.832-1.520 | 0.444 | |||
| Age | ||||||
| Older vs. younger | 2.126 | 1.520-2.973 | 0.000 | 3.204 | 1.910-5.374 | 0.000 |
| Tumor location | ||||||
| rectum vs. colon) | 0.899 | 0.632-1.279 | 0.555 | |||
| MiRNA signature | ||||||
| High vs low | 3.007 | 2.188-4.133 | 0.000 | 2.806 | 1.724-4.566 | 0.000 |
| Lymph node examined count | ||||||
| 12 or more vs. less than 12 | 0.747 | 0.423-1.321 | 0.316 | |||
| Preoperative CEA | ||||||
| Abnormal vs. normal | 2.379 | 1.558-3.630 | 0.000 | 2.166 | 1.392-3.371 | 0.001 |
| Stage group | ||||||
| Late group vs. early group | 1.743 | 1.275-2.383 | 0.000 | 1.944 | 1.233-3.065 | 0.004 |
Figure 4Kaplan-Meier survival analysis according to the four-miRNA signature stratified by clinicopathological risk factors in all 791 CRC patients. (A, B) TNM stage. (C, D) age. (E, F) preoperative CEA level. We calculated P values using the log-rank test.
Figure 5Time-dependent ROC curves to compare the prognostic accuracy of the four-miRNA signature with clinicopathological risk factors and single miRNAs in all the 791 patients. (A, B) Comparisons of the prognostic accuracy by the four-miRNA-based signature, age, preoperative CEA level, clinical stages, and combined clinicopathological prognostic factors and miRNA signature. (C, D) Comparisons of the prognostic accuracy by the four-miRNA-based signature, and miR-210, miR-375, miR-26a, miR-197. P values were from the comparisons of the AUC of the miRNA signature versus the AUC of other factors.
Figure 6The nomogram to predict probability of OS for CRC patients in all 791 patients. (A) The nomogram for predicting proportion of patients with OS. (B) The calibration plots of the nomogram for the probability of OS at 3 and 5 years. (C) Time-dependent ROC based on the nomogram for survival probability. Nomogram-predicted probability of survival is plotted on the x-axis, and observed survival probability is plotted on the y-axis.