| Literature DB >> 35550340 |
Sum-Fu Chiang1, Heng-Hsuan Huang2, Wen-Sy Tsai3, Bertrand Chin-Ming Tan4, Chia-Yu Yang5, Po-Jung Huang6, Ian Yi-Feng Chang7, Jiarong Lin8, Pei-Shan Lu8, En Chin2, Yu-Hao Liu2, Jau-Song Yu9, Jy-Ming Chiang3, Hsin-Yuan Hung3, Jeng-Fu You3, Hsuan Liu10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major health concern globally, but exhibits regional and/or environmental distinctions in terms of outcome especially for patients with stage III CRC.Entities:
Keywords: Adenomatous polyposis coli; Colorectal cancer; Exome; Next-generation sequencing; Transcriptome
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35550340 PMCID: PMC9250073 DOI: 10.1016/j.bj.2021.03.001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed J ISSN: 2319-4170 Impact factor: 7.892
Distribution of clinicopathological features according to the different stages of patients with colorectal cancer.
| Clinical Stage | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | 15 | 26 | 12 | ||
| Mean (±SD) | 66.5 ± 10.2 | 61.6 ± 10.6 | 59.1 ± 8.6 | 61.3 ± 9.5 | 0.333 |
| Male | 6 (85.7) | 9 (60.0) | 12 (46.2) | 5 (41.7) | 0.225 |
| Female | 1 (14.3) | 6 (40.0) | 14 (53.8) | 7 (58.3) | |
| T1-2 | 7 (100.0) | 0 (0) | 3 (11.5) | 0 (0) | <0.001 |
| T3-4 | 0 (0) | 15 (100.0) | 23 (88.5) | 12 (100.0) | |
| Yes | 2 (28.6) | 9 (60.0) | 11 (42.3) | 5 (41.7) | 0.556 |
| No | 5 (71.4) | 6 (40.0) | 15 (57.7) | 7 (58.3) | |
| Well differentiation | 1 (14.3) | 0 (0) | 1 (3.8) | 0 (0) | 0.428 |
| Moderate differentiation | 6 (85.7) | 14 (93.3) | 22 (84.6) | 9 (75.0) | |
| Poor differentiation | 0 (0) | 1 (6.7) | 3 (11.5) | 3 (25.0) | |
| < 5 ng/mL | 5 (71.4) | 11 (73.3) | 18 (69.2) | 3 (25.0) | 0.038 |
| ≧ 5 ng/mL | 2 (28.6) | 4 (26.7) | 8 (30.8) | 9 (75.0) | |
| ≧ 2 years | 5 (71.4) | 14 (93.3) | 21 (80.8) | 5 (41.7) | 0.041 |
| < 2 years | 1 (14.3) | 0 (0) | 3 (11.5) | 5 (41.7) | |
| Not available | 1 (14.3) | 1 (6.7) | 2 (7.7) | 2 (16.6) | |
| ≧ 2 years | 5 (71.4) | 14 (93.3) | 18 (69.2) | 0 (0) | <0.001 |
| < 2 years | 1 (14.3) | 0 (0) | 6 (23.1) | 12 (100.0) | |
| Not available | 1 (14.3) | 1 (6.7) | 2 (7.7) | 0 (0) | |
The p-value was calculated using ANOVA for the continuous variable (age). The p-values were calculated using Fisher's exact test for categorial variables (gender, T-stage, family history, histological grade, CEA, overall survival, disease free survival).
Fig. 1Mutational profiles and signatures exhibited by the Taiwan CRC-60 data. For the 60 patients with CRC included in our cohort, attributes (e.g., mutation events per Mb, clinical data, mutation type, mutated genes, and mutational signatures) are depicted with different colors, as indicated. The graphical symbols are shown on the right side of each panel.
Fig. 2Characteristics of mutation landscapes between different CRC datasets. (A) Top 30 most prevalently mutated genes in the Taiwan CRC-60 dataset, arranged in the order of their detected incidence. Corresponding mutation events detected in TCGA and ICGC datasets are also shown. (B) Distribution of the mutation rates for the most prevalently mutated genes shared between Taiwan and TCGA data.
Fig. 3The 2-year overall survival and disease-free survival of CRC-60 patients with stage III CRC were assessed on the basis of the somatic APC gene mutation or preoperative serum CEA statuses. The prognostic powers of the APC genotype and CEA were also compared individually (A to D) or in combination (E & F). For (E & F), patients with stage I–III CRC were divided into four groups using the APC genotype and CEA statuses, as indicated.
Fig. 4Comparison of survival outcomes between the APC mutation (APC mut) versus APC wild-type (APC wt) status in the ICGC COCA-CN (A & B) and TCGA (C & D) databases. Patients with stage III CRC in these databases were analyzed. For the TCGA-COADREAD data, independent analyses were further performed on the Caucasian (E &F) or African Americans (G & H).
Comparison of features of stage III CRC with and without somatic APC mutation.
| Features | All cases (n = 26) | APC mut (n = 19) | APC wt (n = 7) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender, males/females | 12/14 | 7/12 | 5/2 | 0.19 |
| Age at diagnosis, mean (±SD) | 59.1 ± 8.6 | 60.3 ± 8.3 | 55.8 ± 9.1 | 0.25 |
| Tumor location (R/L) | 4/20 | 4/13 | 0/7 | 0.28 |
| TNM stage (T1-2/T3-4) | 3/23 | 3/16 | 0/7 | 0.54 |
| Differentiation, (well + moderate)/poor | 23/3 | 19/0 | 4/3 | |
| Positive lymph nodes, mean (±SD) | 7.3 ± 2.0 | 4.7 ± 1.1 | 14.2 ± 6.6 | |
| Tumor size, mean (±SD) | 4.4 ± 1.8 | 4.4 ± 2.0 | 4.3 ± 1.1 | 0.94 |
| CEA, mean (±SD) | 5.1 ± 1.2 | 4.2 ± 1.0 | 7.4 ± 3.9 | 0.27 |
| Body mass index, mean (±SD) | 24.7 ± 2.8 | 24.7 ± 0.7 | 24.7 ± 1.1 | 0.96 |
| Smoking, ever/never | 9/17 | 5/14 | 4/3 | 0.18 |
| Alcohol consumption, ever/never | 7/19 | 3/16 | 4/3 | 0.057 |
| (2) TP53 mutation (%) | 21 (80.8) | 16 (84.2) | 5 (71.4) | 0.58 |
| (3) KRAS mutation (%) | 13 (50.0) | 10 (52.6) | 3 (42.9) | 1.00 |
| (4) TTN mutation (%) | 13 (50.0) | 9 (47.4) | 4 (57.1) | 1.00 |
| (5) SYNE1 mutation (%) | 12 (46.2) | 10 (52.6) | 2 (28.6) | 0.39 |
| (6) RYR1 mutation (%) | 8 (30.8) | 6 (31.6) | 2 (28.6) | 1.00 |
| (7) CSMD3 mutation (%) | 7 (26.9) | 3 (15.8) | 4 (57.1) | 0.057 |
| (8) DNAH5 mutation (%) | 2 (7.7) | 1 (5.3) | 1 (14.3) | 0.47 |
| (9) LRP1B mutation (%) | 4 (15.4) | 2 (10.5) | 2 (28.6) | 0.28 |
| (10) LRP2 mutation (%) | 6 (23.1) | 6 (31.6) | 0 (0) | 0.14 |
| (11) LRRK2 mutation (%) | 4 (15.4) | 3 (15.8) | 1 (14.3) | 1.00 |
| (12) MUC16 mutation (%) | 4 (15.4) | 3 (15.8) | 1 (14.3) | 1.00 |
| (13) UNC80 mutation (%) | 3 (11.5) | 3 (15.8) | 0 (0) | 0.54 |
| (14) USH2A mutation (%) | 4 (15.4) | 2 (10.5) | 2 (28.6) | 0.28 |
| (15) ATM mutation (%) | 2 (7.7) | 2 (10.5) | 0 (0) | 1.00 |
| (16) CCDC168 mutation (%) | 6 (23.1) | 3 (15.8) | 3 (42.9) | 0.29 |
| (17) CSMD1 mutation (%) | 5 (19.2) | 4 (21.1) | 1 (14.3) | 1.00 |
| (18) FAT3 mutation (%) | 3 (11.5) | 1 (5.3) | 2 (28.6) | 0.16 |
| (19) FLG mutation (%) | 2 (7.7) | 2 (10.5) | 0 (0) | 1.00 |
| (20) HMCN1 mutation (%) | 3 (11.5) | 2 (10.5) | 1 (14.3) | 1.00 |
Numbers in boldface indicate statistical significance (p < 0.05).
We compared APC-mut and APC-wt in the table. The p-values to compare two groups were calculated using ANOVA for continuous variables (age at diagnosis, positive lymph nodes, tumor size, CEA, body mass index). The p-values to compare two groups were calculated using Fisher's exact test for categorial variables (gender, tumor location, TNM stage, differentiation, smoking, alcohol consumption, molecular).
There were 2 missing data of tumor location for patients with APC mutation.
Fig. 5Comparative expression patterns of the EGFR gene between the APC mutation (APC mut) versus APC wild-type (APC wt) status in the Taiwan CRC-60 (A & B) and TCGA COADREAD (C & D) data. Patients across from stages I to III (A & C) or with stage III CRC (B & D) were independently analyzed for the relative expression levels of EGFR (as normalized by the abundance of TUB3).
Fig. 6An integrative analysis of transcriptome alterations associated with CRC survival outcome. Networks comprising 14 miRNA targets (oval) and 82 mRNA targets (diamond) found by this analysis are shown in (A), from which 99 miRNA-mRNA paired regulation networks were constructed. Red and blue nodes indicate the upregulated and downregulated targets, respectively. Pathway analysis of the 82 targets is shown in (B).