| Literature DB >> 34007331 |
Wenying Liu1, Yu Xia2, Mengyan Li1, Gulinaer Abulajiang1, Hui Wang1, Liping Su1, Chao Li1, Yan Shi1, Wenjing Zhang1, Shanshan Xu1, Yuqing Ma1.
Abstract
Esophageal cancer has always been one of the major malignant tumor types affecting the health of the Chinese population. Metastasis-associated protein 1 (MTA1), SOX4 and enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) are all potent inducers of invasion and metastasis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, the role of these signaling molecules and their implication in ESCC have remained largely elusive. In the present study, the effects of MTA1, SOX4 and EZH2 on the prognosis of patients with ESCC were explored. Immunohistochemistry was used to examine the expression levels of MTA1, SOX4 and EZH2. The χ2 test was used to analyze the association between protein expression and clinicopathological parameters. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards model survival analysis was performed to investigate the effects of the three proteins examined on disease prognosis. The results indicated that MTA1 may be used as a prognostic and diagnostic marker for ESCC. To the best of our knowledge, the present study was the first to demonstrate that MTA1-SOX4 signaling is associated with prognosis in ESCC. However, no significant association was noted between SOX4 and EZH2 in the present study, which was inconsistent with previously reported findings. The function of the MTA1-SOX4-EZH2 axis and the interactions of the proteins involved require further investigation. Copyright: © Liu et al.Entities:
Keywords: SOX4; enhancer of zeste homolog 2; esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; immunohistochemistry; metastasis-associated protein 1; prognosis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34007331 PMCID: PMC8120658 DOI: 10.3892/etm.2021.10154
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Ther Med ISSN: 1792-0981 Impact factor: 2.447
Figure 1Expression of MTA1, SOX4 and EZH2 in ESCC and normal esophageal tissues. Immunohistochemical staining of ESCC for (A) MTA1 (positive), (B) SOX4 (positive), (C) EZH2 (positive), (D) SOX4 (negative), (E) SOX4 (negative) and (F) EZH2 (negative). Staining of normal esophageal tissues for (G and H) SOX4 (negative) and (I) EZH2 (negative) (magnification, x100 or x400 in magnified window; scale bar, 200 µm). ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; MTA1, metastasis-associated protein 1; EZH2, enhancer of zeste homolog 2.
Association between MTA1, SOX4 and EZH2 expression and clinicopathological parameters in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
| MTA1 | SOX4 | EZH2 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | Negative | Positive | P-value | Negative | Positive | P-value | Negative | Positive | P-value |
| Age (years) | 0.557 | 0.016 | 0.092 | ||||||
| <60 | 11 (4.8) | 71 (31.0) | 19 (8.3) | 63 (27.5) | 54 (23.6) | 28 (12.2) | |||
| ≥60 | 24 (10.5) | 123 (53.7) | 57 (24.9) | 90 (39.3) | 80 (34.9) | 67 (29.3) | |||
| Ethnicity | <0.001 | 0.035 | 0.130 | ||||||
| Han | 7 (3.1) | 112 (48.9) | 32 (14.0) | 87 (38.0) | 64 (27.9) | 55 (24.0) | |||
| Kazakh | 28 (12.2) | 82 (35.8) | 44 (19.2) | 66 (28.8) | 70 (30.6) | 40 (17.5) | |||
| Degree of differentiation | 0.395 | 0.725 | 0.003 | ||||||
| PD | 10 (4.4) | 36 (15.7) | 13 (5.7) | 33 (14.4) | 35 (15.3) | 11 (4.8) | |||
| MD | 17 (7.4) | 106 (46.3) | 42 (18.3) | 81 (35.4) | 73 (31.9) | 50 (21.8) | |||
| WD | 8 (3.5) | 52 (22.7) | 21 (9.2) | 39 (17.0) | 26 (11.4) | 34 (14.8) | |||
| Lymph node metastasis | 0.037 | 0.665 | 0.289 | ||||||
| No | 29 (12.7) | 126 (55.0) | 50 (21.8) | 105 (45.9) | 87 (38.0) | 68 (29.7) | |||
| Yes | 6 (2.6) | 68 (29.7) | 26 (11.4) | 48 (21.0) | 47 (20.5) | 27 (11.8) | |||
Values are expressed as n (%). MTA1, metastasis-associated protein 1; EZH2, enhancer of zeste homolog 2; PD, poorly differentiated; MD, moderately differentiated; WD, well differentiated.
Correlation of SOX4 with MTA1 and EZH2.
| SOX4 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | - | + | ρ | P-value |
| MTA1 | 0.139 | 0.036 | ||
| - | 17 (7.4) | 18 (7.9) | ||
| + | 59 (25.8) | 135 (59.0) | ||
| EZH2 | -0.122 | 0.066 | ||
| - | 38 (16.6) | 96 (41.9) | ||
| + | 38 (16.6) | 57 (24.9) | ||
Values are expressed as n (%). MTA1, metastasis-associated protein 1; EZH2, enhancer of zeste homolog 2.
Correlation of MTA1 with EZH2.
| MTA1 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | - | + | ρ | P-value |
| EZH2 | 0.087 | 0.191 | ||
| - | 24 (10.5) | 110 (48.0) | ||
| + | 11 (48.0) | 84 (36.7) | ||
Values are expressed as n (%). MTA1, metastasis-associated protein 1; EZH2, enhancer of zeste homolog 2.
Figure 2Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for patients with ESCC. (A) OS over three years; patients with ESCC and MTA1-positive status had poor OS. (B) OS over five years; patients with ESCC and MTA1-positive status had poor OS. (C) OS at the follow-up date; high expression of MTA1 in ESCC was associated with poor OS. OS, overall survival; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; MTA1, metastasis-associated protein 1.
Association of MTA1 expression (positive vs. negative) with 3-year and 5-year OS in patient subgroups.
| 3-year survival rate | 5-year survival rate | OS (at follow-up date) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | χ2 | P-value | χ2 | P-value | χ2 | P-value |
| Age (years) | ||||||
| <60 | 2.196 | 0.138 | 3.325 | 0.068 | 3.325 | 0.068 |
| ≥60 | 5.062 | 0.024 | 1.314 | 0.252 | 1.922 | 0.166 |
| Sex | ||||||
| Male | 11.981 | 0.001 | 5.435 | 0.020 | 6.685 | 0.010 |
| Female | 0.269 | 0.604 | 0.001 | 0.980 | 0.001 | 0.980 |
| Ethnicity | ||||||
| Han | 3.094 | 0.079 | 0.512 | 0.474 | 1.289 | 0.256 |
| Kazakh | 6.199 | 0.013 | 6.632 | 0.010 | 6.541 | 0.011 |
| Tumor location | ||||||
| Up | 1.525 | 0.217 | 1.525 | 1.525 | 1.525 | 0.217 |
| M | 3.851 | 0.050 | 2.541 | 2.541 | 2.917 | 0.088 |
| L | 2.361 | 0.124 | 0.666 | 0.666 | 1.115 | 0.291 |
| Tumor size (cm) | ||||||
| <3 | 4.664 | 0.031 | 1.545 | 0.214 | 2.361 | 0.124 |
| ≥3 | 3.233 | 0.072 | 2.589 | 0.108 | 2.748 | 0.097 |
| Degree of differentiation | ||||||
| PD | 3.724 | 0.054 | 1.377 | 0.241 | 2.027 | 0.155 |
| MD | 6.064 | 0.014 | 6.366 | 0.012 | 6.663 | 0.010 |
| WD | 0.342 | 0.559 | 0.001 | 0.976 | 0.009 | 0.923 |
| Lymph node metastasis | ||||||
| No | 4.100 | 0.043 | 2.591 | 0.107 | 3.103 | 0.078 |
| Yes | 1.655 | 0.198 | 0.552 | 0.457 | 0.506 | 0.477 |
| Depth of invasion | ||||||
| MA | 0.616 | 0.432 | 0.616 | 0.432 | 0.616 | 0.432 |
| MS | 0.588 | 0.443 | 0.183 | 0.669 | 0.546 | 0.460 |
| FT | 7.691 | 0.006 | 4.760 | 0.029 | 5.066 | 0.024 |
| TNM stage | ||||||
| IA+B | 0.863 | 0.353 | 0.863 | 0.353 | 0.732 | 0.392 |
| IIA+B | 2.085 | 0.149 | 1.238 | 0.266 | 1.751 | 0.186 |
| IIIA+B | 1.782 | 0.182 | 0.882 | 0.348 | 0.882 | 0.348 |
| IVA+B | 4.101 | 0.043 | 2.482 | 0.115 | 2.482 | 0.115 |
| Vascular invasion | ||||||
| No | 4.470 | 0.034 | 2.553 | 0.110 | 2.999 | 0.083 |
| Yes | 3.328 | 0.068 | 2.746 | 0.098 | 3.648 | 0.056 |
| Nerve invasion | ||||||
| No | 7.591 | 0.006 | 5.215 | 0.022 | 6.476 | 0.011 |
| Yes | 0.371 | 0.542 | 0.012 | 0.913 | 0.012 | 0.913 |
| Hematogenous metastasis | ||||||
| No | 4.666 | 0.031 | 1.720 | 0.190 | 2.404 | 0.121 |
| Yes | 3.164 | 0.075 | 2.869 | 0.090 | 2.893 | 0.089 |
MTA1, metastasis-associated protein 1; OS, overall survival; Up, upper; M, middle; L, lower; MA, mucosa; MS, muscularis; FT, full thickness; PD, poorly differentiated; MD, moderately differentiated; WD, well differentiated.
Figure 3Kaplan-Meier survival analysis for OS (months). (A) Effect of degree of differentiation on OS in patients with ESCC. (B) Effect of TNM stage on OS in patients with ESCC. (C) Effect of nerve invasion status on OS in patients with ESCC. OS, overall survival; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; PD, poorly differentiated; MD, moderately differentiated; WD, well differentiated; HR, hazard ratio.
Univariate and multivariate analysis of the influence of variables on OS and PFS.
| OS | PFS | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate | Multivariate | Univariate | Multivariate | |||||
| Variable | χ2 | P-value | HR (95% CI) | P-value | χ2 | P-value | HR (95% CI) | P-value |
| Sex (female vs. male) | 2.146 | 0.143 | - | - | 1.762 | 0.184 | - | - |
| Age (≥60 years vs. <60 years) | 0.679 | 0.410 | - | - | 0.247 | 0.619 | - | - |
| Ethnicity (Han vs. Kazakh) | 0.384 | 0.535 | - | - | 0.015 | 0.903 | - | - |
| Tumor location (Up vs. M vs. L) | 0.271 | 0.873 | - | - | 0.771 | 0.680 | - | - |
| Tumor size (≥3 cm vs. <3 cm) | 3.826 | 0.050 | - | - | 4.432 | 0.035 | 1.327 (0.942-1.870) | 0.106 |
| Degree of differentiation (PD vs. MD vs. WD) | 7.398 | 0.025 | PD 0.245 (0.072-0.841) | 0.025 | 12.282 | 0.002 | PD 0.106 (0.020-0.548) | 0.007 |
| Depth of invasion (MA vs. MS vs. FT) | 2.400 | 0.301 | - | - | 3.346 | 0.188 | - | - |
| TNM stage (I vs. II vs. III vs. IV) | 15.350 | 0.002 | - | - | 15.805 | 0.001 | - | - |
| Lymph node metastasis (yes vs. no) | 8.707 | 0.003 | 1.085 (0.716-1.642) | 0.701 | 17.046 | <0.001 | 1.479 (0.968-2.259) | 0.071 |
| Vascular invasion (yes vs. no) | 0.924 | 0.337 | - | - | 1.187 | 0.276 | - | - |
| Nerve invasion (yes vs. no) | 6.720 | 0.010 | 1.451 (1.012-2.079) | 0.043 | 4.938 | 0.026 | 1.465 (1.029-2.087) | 0.034 |
| Postradiochemotherapy (yes vs. no) | 0.003 | 0.953 | - | - | 0.224 | 0.636 | - | - |
| Hematogenous metastasis (yes vs. no) | 1.425 | 0.433 | - | - | 3.952 | 0.047 | 1.485 (0.995-2.217) | 0.053 |
| MTA1 expression (positive vs. negative) | 5.229 | 0.022 | 1.565 (0.355-0.899) | 0.016 | 2.004 | 0.157 | - | - |
| SOX4 expression (positive vs. negative) | 0.013 | 0.908 | - | - | 0.006 | 0.941 | - | - |
| EZH2 expression (positive vs. negative) | 0.807 | 0.369 | - | - | 0.657 | 0.481 | - | - |
MTA1, metastasis-associated protein 1; EZH2, enhancer of zeste homolog 2; HR, hazard ratio; PD, poorly differentiated; MD, moderately differentiated; WD, well differentiated; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; up, upper; M, middle; L, lower; MA, mucosa; MS, muscularis; FT, full thickness.