| Literature DB >> 32148377 |
Long Pan1, Jing Fang1, Ming-Yu Chen1, Shu-Ting Zhai1, Bin Zhang1, Zhi-Yu Jiang1, Sarun Juengpanich1, Yi-Fan Wang1, Xiu-Jun Cai1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite significant advances in multimodality treatments, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains one of the most common malignant tumors. Identification of novel prognostic biomarkers and molecular targets is urgently needed. AIM: To identify potential key genes associated with tumor microenvironments and the prognosis of HCC.Entities:
Keywords: Differentially expressed genes; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Overall survival; Tumor microenvironment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32148377 PMCID: PMC7052538 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i8.789
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1007-9327 Impact factor: 5.742
Figure 1High immune scores and stromal scores are significantly associated with better prognosis in patients with hapetocellular carcinoma. A: Recurrence-free survival (RFS) between two groups based on immune scores; B: Overall survival (OS) between two groups based on immune scores; C: RFS between two groups based on stromal scores; D: OS between two groups based on stromal scores; E-J: Level of tumor-infiltrating immune cells in the two groups, including B cell, CD4+ T cell, CD8+ T cell, neutrophil, macrophage, and dendritic cell. There were 258 cases with high scores and 86 cases with low scores. aP = 6.9e-15, bP < 2.2e-16, cP = 8.8e-10. RFS: Recurrence-free survival; OS: Overall survival.
Figure 2Pathway and process enrichment analysis of prognosis-related differentially expressed genes in hapetocellular carcinoma. A and B: Venn diagrams showing the number of simutaneously downregulated (A) or upregulated (B) differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in immune or stromal score groups; C-F: Gene ontology terms and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analysis across 147 DEGs with regard to (C) biological process, (D) cellular component, (E) molecular function, and (F) KEGG pathway. G: Network of enriched terms. Nodes that share the same terms are typically close to each other. KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes.
Figure 3Protein-protein interaction network and module analysis of prognosis-related differentially expressed genes. A: Protein-protein interaction (PPI) network of all 147 differentially expressed genes; B: PPI network of the module. The color of nodes in the PPI network reflects the log (FC) value of the Z score of gene expression, and the size of nodes means the number of interacting proteins with the designated protein; C and D: Gene ontology terms and KEGG pathway analysis for the genes in the module. GO: Gene ontology; KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes.
Figure 4Prognosis-related differentially expressed genes validated in four additional cohorts and construction of the prognostic gene signature. A: Venn diagram showing the results of genes validated in four cohorts; B: Circos plot showing overlapping genes between the four cohorts. Purple curves link identical genes while blue curves link genes that belong to the same enriched ontology term; C: LASSO coefficient profiles of 52 genes validated in four cohorts; D: Distribution of risk scores; E: Patients’ survival time and status. The black dotted line indicates the optimum cutoff dividing patients into low- and high-risk groups; (F) Kaplan-Meier curves for low- and high-risk groups; G: Heat map of ten key genes in the genes signature; H: Time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curves for comparing prediction accuracy among the ten-gene-based signature and clinicopathological features.
Genes with significant prognostic value in hepatocellular carcinoma identified in both The Cancer Genome Atlas and Integrative Molecular Database of Hepatocellular Carcinoma
| 2 | ||
| 1 |
Genes in bold have not been previously reported for their prognostic value in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; HCCDB: Integrative molecular database of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Top 10 genes predicting overall survival screened by lasso regression in hepatocellular carcinoma cohort from The Cancer Genome Atlas
| 0.72 | 0.60-0.87 | 0.0008 | -0.0780 | |
| 0.89 | 0.84-0.94 | 0.0001 | -0.0375 | |
| 0.84 | 0.76-0.93 | 0.0008 | -0.0276 | |
| 1.13 | 1.05-1.21 | 0.0005 | 0.0173 | |
| 0.91 | 0.87-0.96 | 0.0002 | -0.0149 | |
| 0.90 | 0.85-0.95 | 0.0004 | -0.0131 | |
| 1.06 | 1.01-1.12 | 0.0255 | 0.0106 | |
| 0.84 | 0.75-0.95 | 0.0041 | -0.0082 | |
| 0.91 | 0.86-0.96 | 0.0007 | -0.0072 | |
| 0.82 | 0.72-0.93 | 0.0016 | -0.0062 | |
HR: Hazard ratio; CI: Confidential interval.
Figure 5Correlation of expression of the ten genes with overall survival in The Cancer Genome Atlas. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated by using the website “Kaplan Meier plotter” (http://kmplot.com/analysis). The the best performing threshold was selected as a cutoff.
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyese of prognostic factors and overall survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma from The Cancer Genome Atlas database
| Risk score | 11.37 | 5.49-23.56 | < 0.001 | 8.99 | 2.53-32.01 | 0.001 |
| TNM stage | 1.79 | 1.45-2.22 | < 0.001 | 1.24 | 0.89-1.75 | 0.209 |
| Age | 1.01 | 0.99-1.02 | 0.254 | |||
| Gender | 0.79 | 0.55-1.13 | 0.192 | |||
| Race | 1.13 | 0.94-1.37 | 0.196 | |||
| Child-Pugh score | 1.69 | 0.93-3.07 | 0.084 | |||
| ECGO performance status | 2.41 | 1.91-3.04 | < 0.001 | 1.74 | 1.16-2.63 | 0.008 |
| AFP | 1 | 1-1 | 0.443 | |||
| Fibrosis ishak score | 0.91 | 0.78-1.07 | 0.253 | |||
| Histologic grade | 1.1 | 0.86-1.4 | 0.445 | |||
| Vascular invasion | 1.47 | 1.06-2.06 | 0.022 | 1.16 | 0.75-1.79 | 0.511 |
| Hepatitis virus infection | 0.45 | 0.3-0.68 | < 0.001 | 0.81 | 0.45-1.46 | 0.477 |
| Alcohol consumption | 1.1 | 0.75-1.62 | 0.616 | |||
HR: Hazard ratio; CI: Confidential interval; ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.