| Literature DB >> 31980713 |
Sebastian Dietlmeier1, Yao Ye1, Christina Kuhn1, Aurelia Vattai1, Theresa Vilsmaier1, Lennard Schröder1, Bernd P Kost1, Julia Gallwas1, Udo Jeschke2,3, Sven Mahner1,4, Helene Hildegard Heidegger1.
Abstract
Recently our study identified EP3 receptor and galectin-3 as prognosticators of cervical cancer. The aim of the present study was the analysis of EP2 as a novel marker and its association to EP3, galectin-3, clinical pathological parameters and the overall survival rate of cervical cancer patients. Cervical cancer tissues (n = 250), as also used in our previous study, were stained with anti-EP2 antibodies employing a standardized immunohistochemistry protocol. Staining results were analyzed by the IRS scores and evaluated for its association with clinical-pathological parameters. H-test of EP2 percent-score showed significantly different expression in FIGO I-IV stages and tumor stages. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses indicated that EP3-negative/EP2-high staining patients (EP2 IRS score ≥2) had a significantly higher survival rate than the EP3-negative/EP2-low staining cases (p = 0.049). In the subgroup of high galectin-3 expressing patients, the group with high EP2 levels (IRS ≥2) had significantly better survival rates compared to EP2-low expressing group (IRS <2, p = 0.044). We demonstrated that the EP2 receptor is a prognostic factor for the overall survival in the subgroup of negative EP3 and high galectin-3 expressed cervical cancer patients. EP2 in combination with EP3 or galectin-3 might act as prognostic indicators of cervical cancer. EP2, EP3, and galectin-3 could be targeted for clinical diagnosis or endocrine treatment in cervical cancer patients, which demands future investigations.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31980713 PMCID: PMC6981231 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-58095-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Clinical-pathological variables of the patients included in the study.
| Item | Numbers/Total Numbers | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| <49 | 139/250 | 55.6 |
| >49 | 111/250 | 44.4 |
| 0 | 151/250 | 60.4 |
| >1 | 97/250 | 38.8 |
| not available | 2/250 | 0.8 |
| pT1 | 110/250 | 44.0 |
| pT2/3/4 | 137/250 | 54.8 |
| not available | 2/250 | 0.8 |
| I/II | 112/250 | 44.8 |
| III/IV | 44/250 | 17.6 |
| not available | 94/250 | 37.6 |
| I | 21/250 | 8.4 |
| II | 143/250 | 57.2 |
| III | 78/250 | 31.2 |
| not available | 8/250 | 3.2 |
| squamous | 202/250 | 80.8 |
| adenocarcinoma | 48/250 | 19.2 |
| none | 210/250 | 84.0 |
| at least one | 21/250 | 11.6 |
| not available | 11/250 | 4.4 |
| right censured | 190/250 | 76.0 |
| died | 49/250 | 19.6 |
| not available | 11/250 | 4.4 |
Correlation analysis.
| Variables | EP2 IRS score | EP2 percentage score | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| p Value | Correlation coefficient | p Value | Correlation coefficient | |
| pT | 0.81 | −0.015 | 0.648 | −0.029 |
| pN | 0.917 | −0.007 | 0.601 | −0.033 |
| pM | 0.212 | −0.079 | 0.199 | −0.082 |
| Histotype | 0.3 | −0.066 | 0.328 | −0.062 |
| Grading | 0.561 | 0.037 | 0.524 | 0.041 |
| FIGO | 0.369 | −0.057 | 0.287 | −0.068 |
| EP3 | <0.01* | 0.232 | <0.01* | 0.278 |
| galectin−3 | 0.06 | 0.121 | 0.016* | 0.154 |
| E6 | 0.843 | −0.013 | 0.989 | −0.001 |
| p16 | 0.184 | −0.087 | 0.062 | −0.122 |
| p53 | 0.348 | 0.06 | 0.408 | 0.053 |
| MDM2 | 0.852 | 0.012 | 0.776 | 0.018 |
| GPER | 0.817 | 0.015 | 0.36 | 0.058 |
pT, tumor status; pN, lymph node status, pM, metastasis status, FIGO, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics; GPER, G protein-coupled estrogen receptor.
Figure 1EP2 expression shown as the percentage of stained tumor cells compared to FIGO classification. This Figure shows immunohistochemistry (IHC) microphotographs of cervical cancer patients with a magnification of 10× and an insert of 25×. IHC patient with a tumor grade of FIGO 1 and EP2 staining of 30 percent stained tumor cells (a); IHC patient with a tumor grade of FIGO 2 and EP2 staining of 15 percent stained tumor cells (b); IHC patient with a tumor grade of FIGO 3 and EP2 staining of 40 percent stained tumor cells (c); IHC patient with a tumor grade of FIGO 4 and EP2 staining of 50 percent stained tumor cells (d); H-test Boxplot EP2 percentage of stained tumor cells compared to the FIGO grading 1–4 (p = 0.015) (e).
Figure 2EP2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) microphotographs of cervical cancer patients related to tumor staging (pT) with a magnification of 10× and an insert of 25×. IHC with a tumor grade of pT 1b1 and EP2 staining of 30 percent stained tumor cells (a); IHC with a tumor grade of pT T2b and EP2 staining of 20 percent stained tumor cells (b); H-test Boxplot EP2 percentage of stained tumor cells compared to tumor grading pT with subtypes (p = 0.023) Median percentage of EP2 stained tumor cells are in pT 1a1 (n = 1) has 40%, pT 1b (n = 55) 20%, pT 1b1 (n = 44) 30%, pT 1b2 (n = 12) 35%, pT 2a (n = 28) 30%, pT 2b (n = 100) 20%, pT 3a (n = 4) 15%, pT 3b (n = 4) 50%, and pT 4 (n = 1) 35% (c).
Figure 3EP3 IRS 0 stained squamous cell carcinoma patient (a) and EP2 IRS 8 stained squamous cell carcinoma patient (b) is shown. Serial section of the same patient, with a magnification of 10× and an insert of 25×; Kaplan-Meier curve: survival function of EP3 IRS 0 stained patient group with EP2 high (green) IRS >2 and low (blue) IRS <2 expression (c).
Figure 4Galectin-3 (gal-3) staining (a) and EP2 staining (b) is shown. Serial section of the same patient are shown, with a magnification of 10× and an insert of 25×: gal-3 IRS >3 stained squamous cell carcinoma patient (a); EP2 IRS >2 stained squamous cell carcinoma patient (b); Kaplan-Meier curve: survival function of gal-3 IRS >3 stained patient group compared with EP2 high (green) IRS >2 and low (blue) IRS <2 expression (c).