| Literature DB >> 32854652 |
Baoping Zhang1,2, Shuting Gao1, Ruiping Li1, Yiting Li1, Rui Cao1, Jingyang Cheng1, Yumeng Guo1, Errui Wang1, Ying Huang1, Kailiang Zhang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TROP2) is overexpressed in many squamous cell carcinomas and promotes tumor development and invasion. The association between TROP2 expression and occurrence and development of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) remains to be understood.Entities:
Keywords: Differentiation; Oral squamous cell carcinoma; Survival; TROP2; Tissue stiffness
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32854652 PMCID: PMC7450929 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07257-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Paraffin pathological sections of tissues (a, d, g, × 4-fold; b, e, h, × 10-fold; c, f, i, × 40-fold)
Fig. 2Immunohistochemical staining was performed to detect the expression of TROP2 at different stages of OSCC
Fig. 3Average optical density of TROP2, poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma showed high expression(P < 0.05)
Correlation between TROP2 expression and clinicopathological characteristics
| Characters | n | TROP2 expression(%) | Pearson | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low or no(%) | High(%) | ||||
| Total | 108 | 67 | 41 | ||
| Gender | 0.786 | 0.375 | |||
| Male | 60 | 35 | 25 | ||
| Female | 48 | 32 | 16 | ||
| Age | 4.254 | 0.039 | |||
| ≥ 50 | 61 | 43 | 18 | ||
| <50 | 47 | 24 | 23 | ||
| Localization | 2.217 | 0.136 | |||
| mucosa | 21 | 16 | 5 | ||
| Tongue | 87 | 51 | 36 | ||
| Differentiation | 77.268 | < 0.001 | |||
| well | 36 | 35 | 1 | ||
| Moderate | 36 | 31 | 5 | ||
| Poor | 36 | 2 | 34 | ||
| Tumor size | 32.883 | < 0.001 | |||
| T1 ≤ 2 cm | 59 | 51 | 8 | ||
| 2 cm<T2 ≤ 4 cm | 49 | 16 | 33 | ||
| T3>4cm | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| T4b | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Lymph node metastases | 2.574 | 0.109 | |||
| N0 | 42 | 30 | 12 | ||
| NX | 66 | 37 | 29 | ||
| Distant metastases | 1.015 | 0.314 | |||
| M0 | 70 | 41 | 29 | ||
| M1 | 38 | 26 | 12 | ||
| TNM stage | 67.880 | < 0.001 | |||
| I + II | 78 | 67 | 11 | ||
| III + IV | 30 | 0 | 30 | ||
| Perineural infiltration | 16.881 | < 0.001 | |||
| No | 91 | 64 | 27 | ||
| Yes | 17 | 3 | 14 | ||
| Vascular invasion | 27.688 | < 0.001 | |||
| No | 45 | 41 | 4 | ||
| Yes | 63 | 26 | 37 | ||
Fig. 4TROP2 total survival curve using Kaplan-Meier survival curves (low blue line, high green line)
TROP2 expression risk factors with clinicopathological features
| Characteristics | n | TROP2 expression(%) | OR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low or no(%) | High(%) | ||||
| Total | 108 | 67 | 41 | ||
| Gender | 0.375 | 1.429 (0.649,3.147) | |||
| Male | 60 | 35 | 25 | ||
| Female | 48 | 32 | 16 | ||
| Age | 0.039 | 0.437 (0.198,0.966) | |||
| ≥ 50 | 61 | 43 | 18 | ||
| <50 | 47 | 24 | 23 | ||
| Localization | 0.136 | 0.443 (0.149,1.318) | |||
| Mucosa | 21 | 16 | 5 | ||
| Tongue | 87 | 51 | 36 | ||
| Differentiation | |||||
| Well | 36 | 35 | 1 | > 0.05a | 5.645 (0.625,50.987) |
| Moderate | 36 | 31 | 5 | < 0.001b | 105.400 (19.053,583.063) |
| Poor | 36 | 2 | 34 | < 0.001c | 595.000 (51.529,6870.366) |
| Tumor size | < 0.001 | 13.148 (5.060,34.168) | |||
| T1 ≤ 2 cm | 59 | 51 | 8 | ||
| 2 cm<T2 ≤ 4 cm | 49 | 16 | 33 | ||
| T3>4cm | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| T4b | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Lymph node metastases | 0.109 | 1.959 (0.857,4.482) | |||
| N0 | 42 | 30 | 12 | ||
| NX | 66 | 37 | 29 | ||
| Distant metastases | 0.314 | 0.653 (0.284,1.501) | |||
| M0 | 70 | 41 | 29 | ||
| M1 | 38 | 26 | 12 | ||
| TNM stage | < 0.001 | 0.141 (0.082,0.244) | |||
| I + II | 78 | 67 | 11 | ||
| III + IV | 30 | 0 | 30 | ||
| Perineural infiltration | < 0.001 | 11.062 (2.939,41.641) | |||
| No | 91 | 64 | 27 | ||
| Yes | 17 | 3 | 14 | ||
| Vscular invasion | < 0.001 | 14.587 (4.653,45.729) | |||
| No | 45 | 41 | 4 | ||
| Yes | 63 | 26 | 37 | ||
Note: a, Well vs Moderate, b, Moderate vs Poor, c, Well vs Poor
Fig. 5Surface morphology of OSCC tissue sections via AFM detection, irregular morphology appeared in the low differentiation
Fig. 6Surface roughness, results are express as mean ± SEM nm
Fig. 7AFM test average tissue stiffness. Young’s modulus, E, was thus confirmed to be a parameter of cell hardness for various cells and tissue (Pa, P < 0.05)
Fig. 8Correlation analysis between changes in mechanical stiffness of OSCC tissues and TROP2 expression Note: changes have statistical significance (P < 0.01) and show a certain negative correlation (r = − 0.84)