betway必威登陆网址 (betway.com )学报››2022,Vol. 43››Issue (3): 198-204.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.2097-0005.2022.03.008
收稿日期:
2021-10-18出版日期:
2022-03-25发布日期:
2022-04-11通讯作者:
王颜作者简介:
李健,博士,主治医师,主要从事乳腺疾病的临床诊治工作,E-mail:my-lj@163.com。基金资助:
Received:
2021-10-18Online:
2022-03-25Published:
2022-04-11Contact:
Yan WANG摘要:
使用癌症基因组图谱(The Cancer Genome Atlas,TCGA)数据库探讨跨膜蛋白65(TMEM65)在乳腺癌中的表达及意义。
使用Wilcoxon秩和检验方法对比TMEM65基因在乳腺癌和正常组织之间的表达差异,使用logistic回归分析评估乳腺癌患者TMEM65表达与临床特征之间的相关性,并使用Kaplan-Meier和Cox回归方法检测了TMEM65表达水平对生存率的影响,最后根据TMEM65表达及临床特征构建列线图并进行验证。
乳腺癌患者的TMEM65表达水平高于正常组织,差异有统计学意义(P< 0.05)。TMEM65的表达与年龄、T分期、雌激素受体(estrogen receptor,ER)、孕激素受体(progesterone receptor,PR)和HER2表达显著相关,差异有统计学意义(P< 0.05)。Kaplan-Meier生存分析显示,与低表达TMEM65相比,TMEM65高表达的乳腺癌患者预后较差,差异有统计学意义(P< 0.001)。多因素Cox回归分析显示,TMEM65高表达是乳腺癌患者总生存(overall survival,OS)率、无进展间隔期(progression free interval,PFI)、疾病特异性生存(disease-specific survival,DSS)的独立危险因素,差异有统计学意义(P< 0.05)。本研究基于TMEM65基因表达和乳腺癌临床特征构建了列线图,使用C指数和校准曲线说明了该列线图模型预测效能很好。
TMEM65高表达可能是乳腺癌患者预后不良的独立预测因素。
李健, 王颜. TMEM65表达对乳腺癌患者预后的影响[J]. betway必威登陆网址 (betway.com )学报, 2022, 43(3): 198-204.
Jian LI, Yan WANG. Study of TMEM65 expression on the prognosis of breast cancer patients[J]. Journal of Shandong First Medical Unversity & Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, 2022, 43(3): 198-204.
特征 | 低表达TMEM65组 (n=541) |
高表达TMEM65组 (n=542) | p |
---|---|---|---|
原发肿瘤 (T) | 0.038 | ||
T1 | 154 (14.3) | 123 (11.4) | |
T2 | 291 (26.9) | 338 (31.3) | |
T3 | 76 (7.0) | 63 (5.8) | |
T4 | 19 (1.8) | 16 (1.5) | |
区域淋巴结 (N) | 0.010 | ||
N0 | 266 (25.0) | 248 (23.3) | |
N1 | 187 (17.6) | 171 (16.1) | |
N2 | 41 (3.9) | 75 (7) | |
N3 | 38 (3.6) | 38 (3.6) | |
远处转移 (M) | 1.000 | ||
M0 | 437 (47.4) | 465 (50.4) | |
M1 | 10 (1.1) | 10 (1.1) | |
病理分期 | 0.018 | ||
Ⅰ期 | 110 (10.4) | 71 (6.7) | |
Ⅱ期 | 298 (28.1) | 321 (30.3) | |
Ⅲ期 | 114 (10.8) | 128 (12.1) | |
Ⅳ期 | 9 (0.8) | 9 (0.8) | |
年龄(岁) | < 0.001 | ||
≤ 60 | 272 (25.1) | 329 (30.4) | |
> 60 | 269 (24.8) | 213 (19.7) | |
PR水平 | < 0.001 | ||
阴性 | 87 (8.4) | 255 (24.7) | |
不确定 | 3 (0.3) | 1 (0.1) | |
阳性 | 424 (41.0) | 264 (25.5) | |
ER水平 | < 0.001 | ||
阴性 | 36 (3.5) | 204 (19.7) | |
不确定 | 1 (0.1) | 1 (0.1) | |
阳性 | 477 (46.1) | 316 (30.5) | |
HER2水平 | 0.112 | ||
阴性 | 276 (38.0) | 282 (38.8) | |
不确定 | 8 (1.1) | 4 (0.6) | |
阳性 | 66 (9.1) | 91 (12.5) | |
PAM50 | < 0.001 | ||
正常 | 18 (1.7) | 22 (2) | |
LumA | 396 (36.6) | 166 (15.3) | |
LumB | 87 (8.0) | 117 (10.8) | |
Her2 | 20 (1.8) | 62 (5.7) | |
Basal | 20 (1.8) | 175 (16.2) |
表1TMEM65高、低表达组之间临床病理特征比较[n (%)]
特征 | 低表达TMEM65组 (n=541) |
高表达TMEM65组 (n=542) | p |
---|---|---|---|
原发肿瘤 (T) | 0.038 | ||
T1 | 154 (14.3) | 123 (11.4) | |
T2 | 291 (26.9) | 338 (31.3) | |
T3 | 76 (7.0) | 63 (5.8) | |
T4 | 19 (1.8) | 16 (1.5) | |
区域淋巴结 (N) | 0.010 | ||
N0 | 266 (25.0) | 248 (23.3) | |
N1 | 187 (17.6) | 171 (16.1) | |
N2 | 41 (3.9) | 75 (7) | |
N3 | 38 (3.6) | 38 (3.6) | |
远处转移 (M) | 1.000 | ||
M0 | 437 (47.4) | 465 (50.4) | |
M1 | 10 (1.1) | 10 (1.1) | |
病理分期 | 0.018 | ||
Ⅰ期 | 110 (10.4) | 71 (6.7) | |
Ⅱ期 | 298 (28.1) | 321 (30.3) | |
Ⅲ期 | 114 (10.8) | 128 (12.1) | |
Ⅳ期 | 9 (0.8) | 9 (0.8) | |
年龄(岁) | < 0.001 | ||
≤ 60 | 272 (25.1) | 329 (30.4) | |
> 60 | 269 (24.8) | 213 (19.7) | |
PR水平 | < 0.001 | ||
阴性 | 87 (8.4) | 255 (24.7) | |
不确定 | 3 (0.3) | 1 (0.1) | |
阳性 | 424 (41.0) | 264 (25.5) | |
ER水平 | < 0.001 | ||
阴性 | 36 (3.5) | 204 (19.7) | |
不确定 | 1 (0.1) | 1 (0.1) | |
阳性 | 477 (46.1) | 316 (30.5) | |
HER2水平 | 0.112 | ||
阴性 | 276 (38.0) | 282 (38.8) | |
不确定 | 8 (1.1) | 4 (0.6) | |
阳性 | 66 (9.1) | 91 (12.5) | |
PAM50 | < 0.001 | ||
正常 | 18 (1.7) | 22 (2) | |
LumA | 396 (36.6) | 166 (15.3) | |
LumB | 87 (8.0) | 117 (10.8) | |
Her2 | 20 (1.8) | 62 (5.7) | |
Basal | 20 (1.8) | 175 (16.2) |
图3TMEM65在乳腺癌各个临床病理特征分组之间的表达差异A:根据年龄分组; B:根据ER表达水平分组; C:根据PR表达水平分组; D:根据PAM50情况分组; E:根据有无Bssal分组; F:对比LumA和Basal阳性患者; G:对比LumB和Basal阳性患者; H:对比LumA & LumB和Basal阳性患者; I:对比Her2和Basal阳性患者
特征 | OS | PFI | DSS | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
单变量 | 多变量 | 单变量 | 多变量 | 单变量 | 多变量 | |
T3 ~ T4vs.T1 ~ T2 | 1.608* | 1.072 | 2.042*** | 1.106 | 1.902** | 1.009 |
N1-3vs.N0 | 2.239*** | 1.735* | 2.333*** | 1.409 | 3.797*** | 2.381** |
M1vs.M0 | 4.254*** | 2.402* | 8.315*** | 4.387*** | 7.454*** | 4.065*** |
III ~ IV期vs.I ~ II期 | 2.391*** | 1.664 | 2.838*** | 1.658 | 3.519*** | 1.830 |
年龄 (> 60vs.≤ 60岁) | 2.020*** | 2.287*** | 1.253 | 1.445 | 1.495 | |
TMEM65(高vs.低) | 1.715** | 2.123*** | 1.503* | 1.559* | 2.236*** | 2.639*** |
表2对乳腺癌患者临床结局的Cox回归分析
特征 | OS | PFI | DSS | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
单变量 | 多变量 | 单变量 | 多变量 | 单变量 | 多变量 | |
T3 ~ T4vs.T1 ~ T2 | 1.608* | 1.072 | 2.042*** | 1.106 | 1.902** | 1.009 |
N1-3vs.N0 | 2.239*** | 1.735* | 2.333*** | 1.409 | 3.797*** | 2.381** |
M1vs.M0 | 4.254*** | 2.402* | 8.315*** | 4.387*** | 7.454*** | 4.065*** |
III ~ IV期vs.I ~ II期 | 2.391*** | 1.664 | 2.838*** | 1.658 | 3.519*** | 1.830 |
年龄 (> 60vs.≤ 60岁) | 2.020*** | 2.287*** | 1.253 | 1.445 | 1.495 | |
TMEM65(高vs.低) | 1.715** | 2.123*** | 1.503* | 1.559* | 2.236*** | 2.639*** |
图5基于TMEM65表达及临床特征的列线图的构建和验证A、C、E:总生存期(overall survival,OS)、疾病特异性生存(disease-specific survival,DSS)、无进展间隔期(progression free interval,PFI)的列线图; B、D、F:OS、DSS和PFI的列线图的校正曲线
1 | Saleem MZ, Alshwmi M, Zhang H, et al. Inhibition of JNK-Mediated autophagy promotes proscillaridin A-induced apoptosis via ROS generation, intracellular Ca+2oscillation and inhibiting STAT3 signaling in breast cancer cells[J]. Front Pharmacol, 2020, 11: 01055. |
2 | Byun JS, Singhal SK, Park S, et al. Racial differences in the association between luminal master regulator gene expression levels and breast cancer survival[J]. Clin Cancer Res, 2020, 26(8): 1905. |
3 | Feng RM, Zong YN, Cao SM, et al. Current cancer situation in China: good or bad news from the 2018 Global Cancer Statistics?[J]. Cancer Commun (Lond), 2019, 39(1): 22. |
4 | Hassan S, Esch A, Liby T, et al. Pathway-Enriched gene signature associated with 53BP1 response to PARP inhibition in triple-negative breast cancer[J]. Mol Cancer Ther, 2017, 16(12): 2892. |
5 | Wang HL, Xiao Y, Wu L, et al. Comprehensive circular RNA profiling reveals the regulatory role of the circRNA-000911/miR-449a pathway in breast carcinogenesis[J]. Int J Oncol, 2018, 52(3): 743. |
6 | Zhuang Y, Xu HC, Shinde PV, et al. Fragile X mental retardation protein protects against tumour necrosis factor-mediated cell death and liver injury[J]. Gut, 2020, 69(1): 133. |
7 | Duan J, Chen L, Gao HB, et al. GALNT6 suppresses progression of colorectal cancer[J]. Am J Cancer Res, 2018, 8(12): 2419. |
8 | Huang ZZ, Hua X, Song CG, et al. The prognostic prediction value of systemic inflammation score and the development of a nomogram for patients with surgically treated breast cancer[J]. Front Oncol, 2020, 10: 563731. |
9 | Jiang JX, Pan WW, Xu YZ, et al. Tumour-infiltrating immune cell-based subtyping and signature gene analysis in breast cancer based on gene expression profiles[J]. J Cancer, 2020, 11(6): 1568. |
10 | Nishimura N, Gotoh T, Oike Y, et al. TMEM65 is a mitochondrial inner-membrane protein[J]. PeerJ, 2014, 2: e349. |
11 | Nazli A, Safdar A, Saleem A, et al. A mutation in the TMEM65 gene results in mitochondrial myopathy with severe neurological manifestations[J]. Eur J Hum Genet, 2017, 25(6): 744. |
12 | 周亮, 赵瑾, 何慧婵, 等. 前列腺癌染色体8q21-24区域基因异常表达及意义[J]. 武汉大学学报(医学版), 2014, 35(4):511. |
13 | Zheng YJ, Cheng Y, Zhang C, et al. Co-amplification of genes in chromosome 8q24: a robust prognostic marker in hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. J Gastrointest Oncol, 2021, 12(3): 1086. |
14 | Qiu SZ, Hu Y. Are COVID-19 susceptibility genes related to lung cancer?[J]. J Infect, 2021, 83(5): 607. |
15 | Sharma P, Abbasi C, Lazic S, et al. Evolutionarily conserved intercalated disc protein Tmem65 regulates cardiac conduction and connexin 43 function[J]. Nat Commun, 2015, 6: 8391. |
16 | Teng AC, Gu LY, Di Paola M, et al. Abstract 118: reduced cardiac transmembrane protein 65 resulted in dilated cardiomyopathy and progressive cardiac fibrosisin vivo[J]. Circ Res, 2019,125():A118. |
17 | Buchsbaum D. Characterizing function of transmembrane protein 65 in mouse neonatal ventricular cardiomyocytes[D]. University of Toronto (Canada), 2016. |
18 | Wu YP, Lin XD, Chen SH, et al. Identification of prostate Cancer-Related circular RNA through bioinformatics analysis[J]. Front Genet, 2020, 11: 892. |
19 | Shimizu H, Nakayama KI. A 23 gene-based molecular prognostic score precisely predicts overall survival of breast cancer patients[J]. EBioMedicine, 2019, 46: 150. |
20 | Xu SY, Sui J, Yang S, et al. Integrative analysis of competing endogenous RNA network focusing on long noncoding RNA associated with progression of cutaneous melanoma[J]. Cancer Med, 2018, 7(4): 1019. |
21 | Jia YT, Liu Y, Han ZH, et al. Identification of potential gene signatures associated with osteosarcoma by integrated bioinformatics analysis[J]. PeerJ, 2021, 9: e11496. |
[1] | 赵玉立, 张艺馨, 王森, 郭慧敏, 封丽.第二个线粒体衍生半胱天冬氨酸蛋白酶激活剂模拟物与乳腺癌治疗[J]. betway必威登陆网址 (betway.com )学报, 2023, 44(9): 702-706. |
[2] | 赵益浩, 张栋斌.TCH新辅助化疗对中国HER2阳性乳腺癌患者有效性及安全性的Meta分析[J]. betway必威登陆网址 (betway.com )学报, 2023, 44(9): 659-664. |
[3] | 司贵米, 山长平.外泌体非编码RNA在三阴性乳腺癌中的研究进展[J]. betway必威登陆网址 (betway.com )学报, 2023, 44(6): 461-465. |
[4] | 李永昊, 张梅.类器官研究进展及其在乳腺癌中的应用[J]. betway必威登陆网址 (betway.com )学报, 2023, 44(5): 381-387. |
[5] | 毕钊, 王永胜.乳腺癌新辅助治疗后局部区域处理降阶梯策略[J]. betway必威登陆网址 (betway.com )学报, 2023, 44(4): 249-253. |
[6] | 王建刚, 侯勇, 王鹏程, 吕心愿.左侧乳腺癌根治术后调强放疗多目标优化与直接子野优化的剂量学比较[J]. betway必威登陆网址 (betway.com )学报, 2022, 43(4): 267-272. |
[7] | 孙新六.乳腺癌LAT1表达及micro-PET示踪检测[J]. betway必威登陆网址 (betway.com )学报, 2022, 43(1): 20-23. |
[8] | 张丽.组织学病理学和分子分类对乳腺癌的病理诊断价值[J]. betway必威登陆网址 (betway.com )学报, 2021, 42(2): 153-154. |
[9] | 李彬彬, 王新桐, 王新立.乳腺癌新辅助化疗前后相关生物因子的变化及MP分级相关预测因子分析[J]. betway必威登陆网址 (betway.com )学报, 2021, 42(12): 899-902. |
[10] | 赵体贺, 王冬旭, 李湘奇.含不同蒽环类化疗方案致乳腺癌患者心脏毒性的临床研究[J]. betway必威登陆网址 (betway.com )学报, 2021, 42(11): 823-828. |
[11] | 王冬雪, 王婧男, 沈倩倩, 孙玉萍.男性乳腺癌患者基于分子分型的Nomogram预测模型的构建:基于SEER的研究[J]. betway必威登陆网址 (betway.com )学报, 2021, 42(11): 816-822. |
[12] | 李健, 梁玉娜.乳腺癌基于蛋白表达的风险预后模型构建和6种关键蛋白的鉴定[J]. betway必威登陆网址 (betway.com )学报, 2021, 42(10): 721-728. |
[13] | 顾明强.新辅助化疗周疗模式治疗晚期乳腺癌[J]. betway必威登陆网址 (betway.com )学报, 2021, 42(1): 49-52. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||