| Literature DB >> 34512002 |
Buze Chen1,2, Xin Jin3, Haihong Wang1, Qingmei Zhou1, Guilin Li3, Xiaoyuan Lu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present study aims to explore the expression, clinical significance, and prospective pathway signaling of miR-501-3p in ovarian cancer (OC) based on database and informatics analysis.Entities:
Keywords: gene expression; microRNA-501-3p; ovarian cancer; prognosis; the cancer genome atlas
Year: 2021 PMID: 34512002 PMCID: PMC8423717 DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S327673
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Gen Med ISSN: 1178-7074
Characteristics of Patients with OC Based on TCGA
| Characteristic | Levels | Overall |
|---|---|---|
| n | 496 | |
| FIGO stage, n (%) | Stage I | 1 (0.2%) |
| Stage II | 29 (5.9%) | |
| Stage III | 382 (77.6%) | |
| Stage IV | 80 (16.3%) | |
| Primary therapy outcome, n (%) | PD | 36 (8.8%) |
| SD | 25 (6.1%) | |
| PR | 56 (13.7%) | |
| CR | 291 (71.3%) | |
| Race, n (%) | Asian | 16 (3.3%) |
| Black or African American | 32 (6.7%) | |
| White | 431 (90%) | |
| Age, n (%) | ≤60 | 274 (55.2%) |
| >60 | 222 (44.8%) | |
| Histologic grade, n (%) | G1 | 1 (0.2%) |
| G2 | 61 (12.6%) | |
| G3 | 420 (87%) | |
| G4 | 1 (0.2%) | |
| Anatomic neoplasm subdivision, n (%) | Unilateral | 124 (26.6%) |
| Bilateral | 343 (73.4%) | |
| Venous invasion, n (%) | No | 57 (43.2%) |
| Yes | 75 (56.8%) | |
| Lymphatic invasion, n (%) | No | 67 (36.6%) |
| Yes | 116 (63.4%) | |
| Tumor residual, n (%) | NRD | 96 (22%) |
| RD | 341 (78%) | |
| Age, median (IQR) | 59 (51, 69) |
Figure 1Expression of miR-501-3p in OC and normal tissues. Significance marker: *** p<0.001.
Relationship Between miR-501-3p Expression and Clinical Characteristics in OC
| Characteristic | Low Expression of hsa-miR-501-3p | High Expression of hsa-miR-501-3p | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | 248 | 248 | |
| FIGO stage, n (%) | 0.482 | ||
| Stage I | 1 (0.2%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Stage II | 14 (2.8%) | 15 (3%) | |
| Stage III | 196 (39.8%) | 186 (37.8%) | |
| Stage IV | 35 (7.1%) | 45 (9.1%) | |
| Primary therapy outcome, n (%) | 0.204 | ||
| PD | 13 (3.2%) | 23 (5.6%) | |
| SD | 13 (3.2%) | 12 (2.9%) | |
| PR | 33 (8.1%) | 23 (5.6%) | |
| CR | 146 (35.8%) | 145 (35.5%) | |
| Race, n (%) | 0.169 | ||
| Asian | 7 (1.5%) | 9 (1.9%) | |
| Black or African American | 21 (4.4%) | 11 (2.3%) | |
| White | 211 (44.1%) | 220 (45.9%) | |
| Age, n (%) | 0.125 | ||
| ≤60 | 128 (25.8%) | 146 (29.4%) | |
| >60 | 120 (24.2%) | 102 (20.6%) | |
| Histologic grade, n (%) | 0.015 | ||
| G1 | 1 (0.2%) | 0 (0%) | |
| G2 | 39 (8.1%) | 22 (4.6%) | |
| G3 | 200 (41.4%) | 220 (45.5%) | |
| G4 | 1 (0.2%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Anatomic neoplasm subdivision, n (%) | 0.119 | ||
| Unilateral | 69 (14.8%) | 55 (11.8%) | |
| Bilateral | 161 (34.5%) | 182 (39%) | |
| Venous invasion, n (%) | 0.071 | ||
| No | 35 (26.5%) | 22 (16.7%) | |
| Yes | 33 (25%) | 42 (31.8%) | |
| Lymphatic invasion, n (%) | 0.866 | ||
| No | 33 (18%) | 34 (18.6%) | |
| Yes | 60 (32.8%) | 56 (30.6%) | |
| Tumor residual, n (%) | 0.689 | ||
| NRD | 45 (10.3%) | 51 (11.7%) | |
| RD | 170 (38.9%) | 171 (39.1%) | |
| Age, median (IQR) | 60 (52, 70) | 58 (50, 66.25) | 0.150 |
Figure 2Association with miR-501-3p and clinical characteristics in OC. (A) Histological grade, (B) Venous invasion. Significance markers: *p< 0.05; **p<0.01.
MiR-501-3p Expression Associated with Clinical Characteristics (Logistic Regression)
| Characteristics | Total (N) | Odds Ratio (OR) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| FIGO stage (Stage III & Stage IV vs Stage I & Stage II) | 492 | 1.000 (0.474–2.108) | 1.000 |
| Primary therapy outcome (CR vs PD&SD&PR) | 408 | 1.010 (0.657–1.553) | 0.963 |
| Race (White vs Asian & Black or African American) | 479 | 1.460 (0.802–2.702) | 0.220 |
| Age (>60 vs ≤60) | 496 | 0.745 (0.522–1.062) | 0.104 |
| Histologic grade (G3&G4 vs G1&G2) | 483 | 1.990 (1.154–3.514) | 0.015 |
| Anatomic neoplasm subdivision (Bilateral vs Unilateral) | 467 | 1.418 (0.940–2.148) | 0.097 |
| Venous invasion (Yes vs No) | 132 | 2.025 (1.010–4.125) | 0.049 |
| Lymphatic invasion (Yes vs No) | 183 | 0.906 (0.495–1.655) | 0.747 |
| Tumor residual (RD vs NRD) | 437 | 0.888 (0.563–1.396) | 0.606 |
Figure 3Relationship between miR-501-3p expression and prognosis. (A) Overall survival, OS, (B) Disease specific survival, DSS.
Figure 4Venn diagram of common genes between target genes of miR-501-3p and LUAD down-regulated genes.
Figure 5GO analysis of miR-501-3p target genes.
Figure 6KEGG analysis of miR-501-3p target genes.