Fucai Tang1, Zechao Lu1,2, Chengwu He1, Hanbin Zhang3, Weijia Wu1, Zhaohui He4. 1. Department of Urology, The Eighth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Shennan Zhong Road #3025, Futian District, Shenzhen, 518033, Guangdong, China. 2. The First Clinical College of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 511436, China. 3. The Second Clinical College of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, 511436, China. 4. Department of Urology, The Eighth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Shennan Zhong Road #3025, Futian District, Shenzhen, 518033, Guangdong, China. hechh9@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to screen out cut-off age value and age-related differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. METHODS: We selected 45,974 CCRCC patients from SEER and 530 RNA-seq data from TCGA database. The age cut-off value was defined using the X-tile program. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the differences between young and old groups. Hazard ratio (HR) was applied to evaluate prognostic risk of age in different subgroups. Age-related DEGs were identified via RNA-seq data. Survival analysis was used to assess the relationship between DEGs and prognosis. RESULTS: In this study, we divided the patients into young (n = 14,276) and old (n = 31,698) subgroups according to cut-off value (age = 53). Age > 53 years was indicated as independent risk factor for overall survival (OS) and cancer specific survival (CSS) of CCRCC before and after PSM. The prognosis of old group was worse than that in young group. Eleven gene were differential expression between the younger and older groups in CCRCC. The expression levels of PLA2G2A and SIX2 were related to prognosis of the elderly. CONCLUSION: Fifty-three years old was cut-off value in CCRCC. The prognosis of the elderly was worse than young people. It remind clinicians that more attention and better treatment should be given to CCRCC patients who are over 53 years old. PLA2G2A and SIX2 were age-related differential genes which might play an important role in the poor prognosis of elderly CCRCC patients.
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to screen out cut-off age value and age-related differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) from Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. METHODS: We selected 45,974 CCRCC patients from SEER and 530 RNA-seq data from TCGA database. The age cut-off value was defined using the X-tile program. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the differences between young and old groups. Hazard ratio (HR) was applied to evaluate prognostic risk of age in different subgroups. Age-related DEGs were identified via RNA-seq data. Survival analysis was used to assess the relationship between DEGs and prognosis. RESULTS: In this study, we divided the patients into young (n = 14,276) and old (n = 31,698) subgroups according to cut-off value (age = 53). Age > 53 years was indicated as independent risk factor for overall survival (OS) and cancer specific survival (CSS) of CCRCC before and after PSM. The prognosis of old group was worse than that in young group. Eleven gene were differential expression between the younger and older groups in CCRCC. The expression levels of PLA2G2A and SIX2 were related to prognosis of the elderly. CONCLUSION: Fifty-three years old was cut-off value in CCRCC. The prognosis of the elderly was worse than young people. It remind clinicians that more attention and better treatment should be given to CCRCC patients who are over 53 years old. PLA2G2A and SIX2 were age-related differential genes which might play an important role in the poor prognosis of elderly CCRCC patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Age; Age-related genes; Clear cell renal cell carcinoma; Surveillance epidemiology and end results; The Cancer genome atlas
Authors: Brian Meehan; Sree Appu; Brad St Croix; Krystyna Rak-Poznanska; Laurence Klotz; Janusz Rak Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-08-27 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: S Takada; M Namiki; S Takahara; K Matsumiya; N Kondoh; Y Kokado; K Matsumoto; T Nakamura; A Okuyama Journal: Transpl Int Date: 1996 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: Atiqullah Aziz; Matthias May; Richard Zigeuner; Martin Pichler; Thomas Chromecki; Luca Cindolo; Luigi Schips; Ottavio De Cobelli; Bernardo Rocco; Cosimo De Nunzio; Andrea Tubaro; Ioan Coman; Michael Truss; Orietta Dalpiaz; Bernd Hoschke; Christian Gilfrich; Bogdan Feciche; Fabian Fenske; Petros Sountoulides; Robert S Figenshau; Kerry Madison; Manuel Sánchez-Chapado; Maria Del Carmen Santiago Martin; Wolf F Wieland; Luigi Salzano; Giuseppe Lotrecchiano; Raphaela Waidelich; Christian Stief; Sabine Brookman-May Journal: J Urol Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Ho Won Kang; Sung Pil Seo; Won Tae Kim; Seok Joong Yun; Sang Cheol Lee; Wun Jae Kim; Eu Chang Hwang; Seok Ho Kang; Sung Hoo Hong; Jinsoo Chung; Tae Gyun Kwon; Hyeon Hoe Kim; Cheol Kwak; Seok Soo Byun; Yong June Kim Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 2.153