4.7 Article

Prognostic significance of Cbx4 expression and its beneficial effect for transarterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma

Journal

CELL DEATH & DISEASE
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/cddis.2015.57

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81430061, 81472784]
  2. National Basic Research Program of China [2015CB910403]
  3. Shanghai ST Committee [11JC1406800]
  4. Shanghai Committee of Education

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Our recent investigations showed that polycomb chromobox 4 (Cbx4) promotes angiogenesis and metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through its sumoylating action on hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha protein. Here, we attempt to identify the prognostic significances of Cbx4 by a retrospective analyses in 727 cases of HCC patients with and without postoperative transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) or transarterial embolization (TAE). Binary logistic regression tests indicated that Cbx4 is correlated with histological grading, tumor-node-metastasis stage, microvessel density, distant metastasis and hematogenous metastasis of HCC. By univariate and multivariate analyses, we show that Cbx4 is an independent prognostic factor of HCC, and both TAE and TACE treatments have no effects on the overall survival in HCC patients with low Cbx4 expression. More intriguingly, TACE prolongs, while TAE shortens, the overall survival of HCC patients with high Cbx4 expression, indicating that Cbx4 is a good biomarker on decision-making to perform postoperative TACE in HCC patients. Moreover, Cbx4 overexpression enhances while Cbx4 silencing antagonizes doxorubicin-induced cell death of HCC cell lines. In conclusion, Cbx4 is an independent prognostic factor for HCC patients, and the patients with high Cbx4 expression should receive postoperative TACE treatment to improve their survival.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available