| Literature DB >> 33817325 |
Wen Zhang1,2, Zhengquan Cai3, Mingzhu Kong4, Anqi Wu5, Zeyang Hu4, Feng Wang5, Hua Wang1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tripartite motif 28 (TRIM28) plays a role in multiple biological functions. The expression and function of TRIM28 in breast carcinoma (BC) remain unclear. The aim of this study was to explore potential association of TRIM28 with tumor features and survival.Entities:
Keywords: biomarker; breast carcinoma; prognosis; tripartite motif 28; tumor features
Year: 2021 PMID: 33817325 PMCID: PMC8005782 DOI: 10.1515/med-2021-0263
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Open Med (Wars)
Correlations of TRIM28 expression in breast cancer tissues with clinicopathological parameters
| Characteristics | TRIM28 expression | Total |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative ( | Positive ( | |||
|
| ||||
| ≤55 | 29 | 39 | 68 | 0.930 |
| >55 | 20 | 26 | 46 | |
|
| ||||
| ≤2 | 24 | 31 | 55 | 0.892 |
| >2 | 25 | 34 | 59 | |
|
| ||||
| Positive | 3 | 7 | 10 | 0.385 |
| Negative | 46 | 58 | 104 | |
|
| ||||
| Positive | 9 | 26 | 35 | 0.013 |
| Negative | 40 | 39 | 79 | |
|
| ||||
| Ⅰ + Ⅱ | 40 | 44 | 84 | 0.094 |
| Ⅲ | 9 | 21 | 30 | |
|
| ||||
| 0 + Ⅰ | 28 | 22 | 50 | 0.013 |
| Ⅱ + Ⅲ | 21 | 43 | 64 | |
|
| ||||
| Negative | 14 | 30 | 44 | 0.056 |
| Positive | 35 | 35 | 70 | |
|
| ||||
| Negative | 17 | 28 | 45 | 0.365 |
| Positive | 32 | 37 | 69 | |
|
| ||||
| Negative | 35 | 50 | 85 | 0.505 |
| Positive | 14 | 15 | 29 | |
|
| ||||
| NTNBC | 46 | 50 | 96 | 0.014 |
| TNBC | 3 | 15 | 18 | |
|
| ||||
| Negative | 34 | 35 | 69 | |
| Positive | 15 | 30 | 45 | 0.093 |
TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; NTNBC, non-triple-negative breast cancer.
Figure 1The analysis of TRIM28 expression by PCR. (a) TRIM28 expression in BC tissues was significantly higher than that in adjacent normal tissues (P < 0.001). (b) TRIM28 expression in different TNM stages (P < 0.001). ANT, adjacent normal tissue; T, tumor.
Figure 2The IHC staining of TRIM28 expression in tissues. (a) The comparison of the percentage of positive TRIM28 staining in tissues between tumors and ANTs (P < 0.001). (b) The distribution of positive TRIM28 staining at different TNM stages (P = 0.014). (c) The IHC score of TRIM28 in cancer and adjacent tissues (P < 0.001). (d) The IHC score of TRIM28 in triple-negative breast cancer and non-triple-negative breast cancer (P = 0.01). ANT: adjacent normal tissue; T: tumor; TNBC: triple-negative breast cancer; NTNBC: non-triple-negative breast cancer.
Figure 3Representative IHC staining of TRIM28 in BC tissues and corresponding tissues adjacent to cancer (IHC ×200). a1–b2: TRIM28 expression in two groups of BC and adjacent tissues, a1 and a2 were in the first group, b1 and b2 were in the second group, a1 and b1 were cases of breast cancer tissues, a2 and b2 were cases of adjacent tissues. c1 and c2: c1 was a case of TRIM28 expression in triple-negative breast cancer, and c2 was a case of TRIM28 expression in non-triple-negative breast cancer. d1–d4: TRIM28 expression in different TNM stages, d1 was at stage 0, d2 was at stage I, d3 was at stage II, d4 was at stage III.
Figure 4Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of high TRIM28 expression (n = 49) and low TRIM28 expression (n = 65) in BC patients. (a) The relationship between TRIM28 expression and overall survival rate (P = 0.001); (b) The relationship between TRIM28 expression and progression-free survival rate (P < 0.001).
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis of overall survival in 114 breast cancer patients
| Variables | OS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
| Hazard ratio | 95% confidence interval |
| ||
| Age (years) (≤55 vs >55) | 0.722 | 0.863 | 0.374–1.995 | 0.731 |
| Tumor size (cm) (≤2 vs >2) | 0.071 | 1.787 | 0.605–5.279 | 0.294 |
| Vascular or nerve invasion (positive vs negative) | 0.063 | 0.929 | 0.310–2.781 | 0.895 |
| Lymph node metastasis (positive vs negative) | <0.001 | 2.714 | 0.944–7.801 | 0.064 |
| Histologic grade (Ⅰ + Ⅱ vs Ⅲ) | 0.272 | 1.534 | 0.648–3.630 | 0.330 |
| TNM stage (0 + I vs II + III) | 0.001 | 2.134 | 0.418–10.879 | 0.362 |
| ER (negative vs positive) | 0.007 | 3.001 | 0.510–17.665 | 0.224 |
| PR (negative vs positive) | 0.004 | 0.519 | 0.103–2.606 | 0.426 |
| HER-2 (negative vs positive) | 0.579 | 2.104 | 0.598–7.403 | 0.247 |
| Molecular subtype (TNBC vs NTNBC) | <0.001 | 0.105 | 0.017–0.665 | 0.017 |
| Ki67 (negative vs positive) | <0.001 | 2.364 | 0.952–5.868 | 0.064 |
| TRIM28 (negative vs positive) | 0.003 | 3.061 | 1.008–9.297 | 0.048 |
TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; NTNBC, non-triple-negative breast cancer.
Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis of progression-free survival in 114 breast cancer patients
| Variables | PFS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
| Hazard ratio | 95% confidence interval |
| ||
| Age (years) (≤55 vs >55) | 0.394 | 0.615 | 0.278–1.362 | 0.231 |
| Tumor size (cm) (≤2 vs >2) | 0.059 | 1.769 | 0.631–4.956 | 0.278 |
| Vascular or nerve invasion (positive vs negative) | 0.019 | 1.184 | 0.408–3.432 | 0.756 |
| Lymph node metastasis (positive vs negative) | 0.001 | 2.074 | 0.727–5.917 | 0.173 |
| Histologic grade (Ⅰ + Ⅱ vs Ⅲ) | 0.295 | 1.564 | 0.704–3.473 | 0.272 |
| TNM stage (0 + I vs II + III) | 0.001 | 2.004 | 0.499–8.044 | 0.327 |
| ER (negative vs positive) | 0.015 | 3.111 | 0.689–14.039 | 0.140 |
| PR (negative vs positive) | 0.011 | 0.488 | 0.118–2.023 | 0.323 |
| HER-2 (negative vs positive) | 0.418 | 3.136 | 1.039–9.466 | 0.043 |
| Molecular subtype (TNBC vs NTNBC) | <0.001 | 0.179 | 0.037–0.879 | 0.034 |
| Ki67 (negative vs positive) | 0.001 | 1.759 | 0.798–3.878 | 0.162 |
| TRIM28 (negative vs positive) | 0.001 | 3.719 | 1.406–9.838 | 0.008 |
TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; NTNBC, non-triple-negative breast cancer.
Figure 5ROC curve analysis to detect the predictive value of TRIM28 in BC patients.