| Literature DB >> 32375802 |
Bo Chen1, Susanne Je-Han Lin1, Wen-Ta Li1, Hui-Wen Chang1, Victor Fei Pang1, Pei-Yi Chu2, Chin-Cheng Lee3, Hiroyuki Nakayama4, Ching-Ho Wu5, Chian-Ren Jeng6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The microenvironment within solid malignant tumors, including feline mammary gland carcinomas (FMGCs), is commonly hypoxic, possibly due to the lack of functional blood vessels in rapidly proliferating neoplastic tissue. Malignant cells can undergo genetic and adaptive changes that prevent them from dying due to oxygen deprivation through expressions of hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1α) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Therefore, HIF-1α and VEGF are ideal biomarkers for cancer therapy and prognostic evaluation. The aims of this study were to evaluate the expression of HIF-1α and VEGF in feline mammary carcinomas and analyze their correlations with clinical and pathological factors, such as clinical stage, histologic grading, regional metastasis, and overall survival rate.Entities:
Keywords: Feline; Hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1α); Mammary gland carcinoma; Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32375802 PMCID: PMC7204310 DOI: 10.1186/s12917-020-02338-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Fig. 1HIF-1 α and VEGF immunohistochemical expression in feline mammary gland carcinomas (FMGCs). a. Perinecrotic pattern of HIF-1 α expression, b. Diffuse pattern of HIF-1α expression, c. Cytoplasmic VEGF expression, d. Cytoplasmic VEGF expression in neoplastic epithelial cells and mesenchymal stromal cells of FMGCs. Magnification, × 40 (panels a-d)
Association between HIF-1α or VEGF and clinical/pathological factors by using TMAs
| Factors | No. of patients | HIF-1α | VEGF | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overexpression | Overexpression | ||||
| Age | |||||
| < 12 y | 32 | 19 | ns | 24 | ns |
| ≥ 12 y | 40 | 31 | 32 | ||
| Reproductive status | |||||
| Intact female | 24 | 13 | ns | 18 | ns |
| Spayed female | 45 | 34 | 36 | ||
| Intact male | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Castrated male | 2 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Clinical stage | |||||
| I + II | 34 | 20 | ns | 20 | ns |
| III + IV | 35 | 28 | 34 | ||
| Pattern | |||||
| Tubulopapillary | 52 | 37 | ns | 41 | 0.021* |
| Solid | 10 | 7 | 10 | ||
| Cribriform | 6 | 4 | 2 | ||
| Invasive micropapillary | 4 | 2 | 3 | ||
| Tubule formation | |||||
| >75% | 39 | 27 | ns | 28 | ns |
| 10–75% | 22 | 17 | 19 | ||
| <10% | 11 | 6 | 9 | ||
| Mitotic count | |||||
| ≤ 20 | 36 | 25 | ns | 29 | ns |
| > 20 | 36 | 25 | 27 | ||
| Necrosis | |||||
| ≤ 25% | 32 | 21 | ns | 26 | ns |
| > 25% | 40 | 29 | 30 | ||
| Stromal response | |||||
| Mild | 11 | 6 | ns | 6 | 0.048* |
| Peritumoral | 12 | 10 | 8 | ||
| Intratumoral | 49 | 34 | 42 | ||
| Squamous differentiation | |||||
| ≤ 5% | 27 | 17 | ns | 15 | 0.001* |
| > 5% | 44 | 34 | 41 | ||
| Lymphovascular invasion | |||||
| Absent | 37 | 17 | ns | 24 | 0.007* |
| Present | 35 | 31 | 32 | ||
| Lymph node metastases | |||||
| Absent | 10 | 6 | ns | 6 | ns |
| Present | 16 | 10 | 14 | ||
| EE grading system | |||||
| Grade 1 | 18 | 13 | ns | 14 | ns |
| Grade 2 | 43 | 31 | 31 | ||
| Grade 3 | 11 | 6 | 11 | ||
| REE grading system | |||||
| Grade 1 | 40 | 29 | ns | 27 | ns |
| Grade 2 | 28 | 19 | 25 | ||
| Grade 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | ||
| Novel grading system | |||||
| Grade 1 | 5 | 4 | ns | 3 | ns |
| Grade 2 | 30 | 23 | 20 | ||
| Grade 3 | 37 | 23 | 33 | ||
*, p < 0.05
ns Not significant
Fig. 2Kaplan-Meier curves of overall survival rate for 38 cats with mammary gland carcinoma using whole tissue sections. a. Cats with HIF-1 α overexpression had a significantly lower overall survival rate compared with those with HIF-1 α without overexpression. b. VEGF overexpression was not correlated with the overall survival rate of cats with FMGCs. c. Elston and Ellis grading system was significantly correlated with overall survival rate. d. No significant correlation between lymphovascular invasion and lower overall survival rate