4.6 Article

Determining consistent prognostic biomarkers of overall survival and vascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma

Journal

ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE
Volume 5, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.181006

Keywords

hepatocellular carcinoma; liver cancer; survival; biomarker; vascular invasion

Funding

  1. National Research, Development and Innovation Office, Hungary [NVKP_16-1-2016-0037, KH-129581, FIEK_16-1-2016-0005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Potential prognostic biomarker candidates for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are abundant, but their generalizability is unexplored. We cross-validated markers of overall survival (OS) and vascular invasion in independent datasets. Methods: The literature search yielded 318 genes related to survival and 52 related to vascular invasion. Validation was performed in three datasets (RNA-seq, n = 371; Affymetrix arrays, n = 91; Illumina gene chips, n = 135) by uni-and multivariate Cox regression and Mann-Whitney U-test, separately for Asian and Caucasian patients. Results: One hundred and eighty biomarkers remained significant in Asian and 128 in Caucasian subjects at p <0.05. After multiple testing correction BIRC5 (p =1.9 x 10(-10)), CDC20 (p = 2.5 x 10(-9)) and PLK1 (p = 3 x 10(-9)) endured as best performing genes in Asian patients; however, none remained significant in the Caucasian cohort. In a multivariate analysis, significance was reached by stage (p = 0.0018) and expression of CENPH (p = 0.0038) and CDK4 (p = 0.038). KIF18A was the only gene predicting vascular invasion in the Affymetrix and Illumina cohorts ( p = 0.003 and p = 0.025, respectively). Conclusion: Overall, about half of biomarker candidates failed to retain prognostic value and none were better than stage predicting OS. Impact: Our results help to eliminate biomarkers with limited capability to predict OS and/or vascular invasion.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available