| Literature DB >> 34395284 |
Hiroki Hashimoto1, Yumiko Kaku-Ito1, Yoshinao Oda2, Takamichi Ito1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The outcome of extramammary Paget's disease (EMPD) is poor when it progresses to metastasis because of the lack of effective systemic therapies. Recently, CDK4-targeted therapy has attracted attention as a potential therapeutic target for some cancers. The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of CDK4 expression on the survival of patients with EMPD.Entities:
Keywords: CDK4; CDK4/6 inhibitor; cyclin D1; extramammary Paget’s disease; prognostic factor; targeted therapy
Year: 2021 PMID: 34395284 PMCID: PMC8358779 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.710378
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Demographics and clinical data of all 110 patients.
| Parameter | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| Male | 70 (63.6) |
| Female | 40 (36.4) |
| Age (years) | |
| Mean ± SD | 72.6 ± 9.4 |
| Median (range) | 72 (42-91) |
| Tumor site | |
| Genital area only | 93 (84.5) |
| Perianal area only | 4 (3.6) |
| Axillary area only | 4 (3.6) |
| Genital + perianal areas | 6 (5.5) |
| Genital + axillary areas | 1 (0.9) |
| Perianal + axillary areas | 1 (0.9) |
| Genital + perianal + axillary areas | 1 (0.9) |
| Primary lesion size (cm2) | |
| < 25 | 53 (48.2) |
| ≥ 25 | 57 (51.8) |
| TT (mm) | |
| In situ | 62 (56.4) |
| ≤ 1 | 15 (13.6) |
| 1–4 | 22 (20.0) |
| > 4 | 11 (10.0) |
| Lymphovascular invasion | |
| Present | 9 (8.2) |
| Absent | 101 (91.8) |
| Metastasis | |
| Regional LN metastasis | |
| N0 | 96 (87.3) |
| N1 | 5 (4.5) |
| N2 | 9 (8.2) |
| Distant metastasis | |
| M0 | 105 (95.5) |
| M1 | 5 (4.5) |
SD, standard deviation; TT, tumor thickness; LN, lymph node.
Figure 1(A–D) Representative histopathological images of CDK4, cyclin D1, and cytokeratin 7 staining in EMPD. H-scores for CDK4 were: (A) 153, (B) 121, (C) 185, and (D) 200, and H-scores for cyclin D1 were: (A) 121, (B) 90, (C) 106, and (D) 195.
Figure 2Scatter diagram showing the positive correlation between CDK4 and cyclin D1 expression (r = 0.54, p < 0.001).
Factors associated with CDK4 and cyclin D1 expression.
| Parameters | CDK4 Expression | Cyclin D1 Expression | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low (n = 56) | High (n = 54) | Low (n = 63) | High (n = 47) | |||
| Sex | ||||||
| Male | 34 (60.7%) | 36 (66.7%) | 0.56 | 37 (58.7%) | 33 (70.2%) | 0.23 |
| Female | 22 (39.3%) | 18 (33.3%) | 26 (41.3%) | 14 (29.8%) | ||
| Age (year) | ||||||
| Mean ± SD | 72.0 ± 9.5 | 73.1 ± 9.3 | 0.74 | 72.3 ± 9.4 | 72.9 ± 9.4 | 0.90 |
| Tumor site | ||||||
| Perianal area | 5 (8.9%) | 7 (13.0%) | 0.55 | 8 (12.7%) | 4 (8.5%) | 0.55 |
| Other areas | 51 (91.1%) | 47 (87.0%) | 55 (87.3%) | 43 (91.5%) | ||
| Primary lesion size (cm2) | ||||||
| < 25 | 29 (51.8%) | 24 (44.4%) | 0.45 | 33 (52.4%) | 20 (42.6%) | 0.34 |
| ≥ 25 | 27 (48.2%) | 30 (55.6%) | 30 (47.6%) | 27 (57.4%) | ||
| TT (mm) | ||||||
| In situ | 42 (75.0%) | 20 (37.0%) |
| 39 (61.9%) | 23 (48.9%) | 0.23‡ |
| ≤ 4 | 11 (19.6%) | 26 (48.2%) | 20 (31.7%) | 17 (36.2%) | ||
| > 4 | 3 (5.4%) | 8 (14.8%) | 4 (6.4%) | 7 (14.9%) | ||
| Regional LN metastasis | ||||||
| Present | 3 (5.4%) | 11 (20.4%) |
| 7 (11.1%) | 7 (14.9%) | 0.58 |
| Absent | 53 (94.6%) | 43 (79.6%) | 56 (88.9%) | 40 (85.1%) | ||
| TNM stage | ||||||
| 0, I, II | 52 (92.9%) | 43 (79.6%) | 0.054 | 55 (87.3%) | 40 (85.1%) | 0.78 |
| III, IV | 4 (7.1%) | 11 (20.4%) | 8 (12.7%) | 7 (14.9%) | ||
| FU (month) | ||||||
| Mean ± SD | 96.3 ± 45.7 | 78.8 ± 54.0 |
| 91.0 ± 46.7 | 83.3 ± 55.4 | 0.26 |
| Median (range) | 100.0 (4.9–189.8) | 66.3 (2.0–225.8) | 91.9 (4.9–178.2) | 72.9 (2.0–225.8) | ||
Significant values are shown in boldface.
*Mann-Whitney U tests were used for continuous variables, and χ2 or Fisher’s exact tests were used for categorical variables.
†In situ vs. ≤ 4 mm, p = 0.0004; in situ vs. > 4 mm, p = 0.017; ≤ 4 mm vs. > 4 mm, p = 1.00.
‡In situ vs. ≤ 4 mm, p = 0.41; in situ vs. > 4 mm, p = 0.18; ≤ 4 mm vs. > 4 mm, p = 0.49.
CDK, cyclin-dependent kinase; SD, standard deviation; TT, tumor thickness; LN, lymph node; TNM, tumor, node, metastasis; FU, follow-up period.
Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis for disease-specific survival in 42 patients with invasive EMPD.
| Variable | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | HR | 95% CI | |||
| Sex, male | 0.47 | 0.16-1.40 | 0.17 | 0.35 | 0.065–1.85 | 0.22 |
| Age (year)† | 1.01 | 0.96-1.07 | 0.69 | 1.04 | 0.97–1.12 | 0.29 |
| Perianal lesion | 1.47 | 0.40-5.35 | 0.56 | 1.62 | 0.22–11.74 | 0.63 |
| Tumor size, >25 cm2 | 1.28 | 0.43-3.84 | 0.65 | 0.51 | 0.12-2.16 | 0.36 |
| TNM stage, III or IV | 11.84 | 3.18-44.08 |
| 19.24 | 4.38-84.61 |
|
| CDK4 and cyclin D1 expression, high | 1.78 | 0.58-5.45 | 0.31 | 3.14 | 0.68-14.57 | 0.14 |
Significant values are shown in boldface.
†Continuous variable.
CDK, cyclin-dependent kinase; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; TNM, tumor, node, metastasis.
Figure 3Kaplan-Meier disease-specific survival curves of 42 patients with invasive EMPD stratified by CDK4/cyclin D1 expression.