| Literature DB >> 34368001 |
Shiwei Guo1, Xiaohan Shi1,2, Suizhi Gao1, Qunxing Hou3, Lisha Jiang3, Bo Li1, Jing Shen1, Huan Wang1, Shuo Shen1, GuoXiao Zhang1, Yaqi Pan1, Wuchao Liu1, Xiongfei Xu1, Kailian Zheng1, Zhuo Shao1, Wei Jing1, Ling Lin3, Gang Li1, Gang Jin1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is a life-threatening malignant disease with significant diversity among geographic regions and races leading to distinct carcinogenesis and prognosis. Previous studies mainly focused on Western patients, while the genomic landscape of Oriental patients, especially Chinese, remained less investigated.Entities:
Keywords: clinicopathological variable; genetic alteration; network-based stratification; pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; prognosis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34368001 PMCID: PMC8340855 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.717989
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Workflow diagram of the study.
Figure 2Genomic landscape of genetic alterations in PDAC and comparison with other subtypes. (A) Genomic landscape of PDAC genetic alterations (n = 302). (B) Comparison between PDAC (n = 302) and TCGA database (QCMG, n = 383) in genetic mutations. (C) Comparison between PDAC (n = 302) and PVC (n = 74) in genetic mutations. (D) Comparison between PDAC (n = 302) and IPMN (n = 24) in genetic mutations.
Figure 3Mutational signature of PDAC. (A) The correlation between three identified mutational signatures in PDAC (n = 302) and reported COSMIC signatures. (B) Three groups of PDAC patients (n = 302) classified by average signature exposure (left) and their mutation load (right). (C) Specific gene mutations enriched in the three groups (n = 302). (D) Overall survival analysis of the three groups with PDAC patients who received radical resection and had complete follow-up data (n = 247).
Figure 4Genetic mutation of PDAC. (A) Mutation sites of KRAS gene in PDAC (n=302). (B) Mutation sites of TP53 gene in PDAC (n = 302). (C) Mutation sites of SMAD4 gene in PDAC (n = 302). (D) Mutation sites of CDKN2A gene in PDAC (n = 302). (E) Overall survival analysis of above 247 PDAC patients with (n = 212) and without (n = 35) KRAS mutations. (F) Overall survival analysis of above 247 PDAC patients with (n = 102) and without (n = 145) KRAS G12D mutation.
Figure 5Copy number variation of PDAC. (A) The landscape of CNV in PDAC (n = 302). (B) Gains of CNV in PDAC (n = 302). G-score at top and q-value at bottom. (C) Losses of CNV in PDAC (n = 302). G-score at top and q-value at bottom. (D) The correlation between CNVs and clinical variables in PDAC (n = 302). (E) Overall survival analysis of above 247 PDAC patients with (n = 104) and without (n = 143) the 17 significant chromatin structure alterations.
Figure 6Network-based stratification of PDAC with genetic mutation. (A) Schematic of network-based stratification in above 247 PDAC (n = 247). (B) Overall survival analysis of above 247 PDAC patients classified by network-based stratification. (C) The differential KEGG signal pathways among top 30 significantly enriched in class 1. (D) The differential KEGG signal pathways among top 30 significantly enriched in class 2.
Comparison of clinicopathological characteristics between class1 and class2 in spectral clustering.
| Variable | Class1(N = 42) | Class2(N = 107) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (N=149) | 0.261 | ||
| Female (%) | 19 (45.2%) | 37 (34.6%) | |
| Male (%) | 23 (54.8%) | 70 (65.4%) | |
| Age at surgery, y (N=149) | 0.617 | ||
| <70 (%) | 37 (88.1%) | 90 (84.1%) | |
| ≥70 (%) | 5 (11.9%) | 17 (15.9%) | |
| BMI (N=143) | 0.401 | ||
| ≤25 (%) | 28 (70.0%) | 79 (76.7%) | |
| >25 (%) | 12 (30.0%) | 24 (23.3%) | |
| Smoking history (N=146) | 0.450 | ||
| No (%) | 29 (69.0%) | 64 (61.5%) | |
| Yes (%) | 13 (31.0%) | 40 (38.5%) | |
| Drinking history (N=146) | 0.817 | ||
| No (%) | 35 (83.3%) | 83 (79.8%) | |
| Yes (%) | 7 (16.7%) | 21 (20.2%) | |
| Diabetes mellitus (N=146) | 0.028 | ||
| >No (%) | 35 (83.3%) | 67 (64.4%) | |
| Yes (%) | 7 (16.7%) | 37 (35.6%) | |
| Hypertension (N=146) | 0.085 | ||
| No (%) | 32 (76.2%) | 62 (59.6%) | |
| Yes (%) | 10 (23.8%) | 42 (40.4%) | |
| CEA at diagnosis, ng/mL (N=143) | 0.237 | ||
| Normal (%) | 30 (75.0%) | 65 (63.1%) | |
| Elevated (%) | 10 (25.0%) | 38 (36.9%) | |
| CA19-9 at diagnosis, U/mL (N=149) | 0.827 | ||
| Normal (%) | 10 (23.8%) | 23 (21.5%) | |
| Elevated (%) | 32 (76.2%) | 84 (78.5%) | |
| Differentiation degree (N=149) | 0.021 | ||
| Poor (%) | 9 (21.4%) | 42 (39.3%) | |
| Medium/Well (%) | 33 (78.6%) | 65 (60.7%) | |
| Perineural invasion (N=149) | 1.000 | ||
| >No (%) | 3 (7.1%) | 9 (8.4%) | |
| Yes (%) | 39 (92.9%) | 98 (91.6%) | |
| Microvascular invasion (N=149) | 0.131 | ||
| No (%) | 31 (73.8%) | 63 (58.9%) | |
| Yes (%) | 11 (26.2%) | 44 (41.1%) | |
| T stage (N=149) | 0.053 | ||
| T1 | 4 (9.5%) | 8 (7.5%) | |
| T2 | 9 (21.4%) | 45 (42.1%) | |
| T3/T4 | 29 (69.0%) | 54 (50.5%) | |
| N stage (N=149) | 1.000 | ||
| N0 | 17 (40.5%) | 43 (40.2%) | |
| N1/N2 | 25 (59.5%) | 64 (59.8%) |
PDAC, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; BMI, body mass index; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; CA19-9, carbohydrate antigen 19-9.