4.5 Article

YAP1 protein expression has variant prognostic significance in small cell lung cancer (SCLC) stratified by histological subtypes

Journal

LUNG CANCER
Volume 160, Issue -, Pages 166-174

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2021.06.026

Keywords

Yes-associated protein 1 (YAP1); Small cell lung cancer (SCLC); Combined SCLC (C-SCLC); Prognosis; Biomarker

Funding

  1. Cancer Foundation of China, Beijing Hope Marathon Foundation [LC2017A20]
  2. Na-tional Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFC1308704, 2017YFC1311000, 2017YFC1308700, 2018YFC0116905]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study revealed that YAP1 expression is significantly higher in C-SCLCs compared to P-SCLCs, and it serves as an unfavorable predictor for overall survival exclusively in C-SCLC. This suggests different entities of small cell components with variant YAP1 expression and potential different targetable oncogenic pathways between C-SCLC and P-SCLC.
Background: Recently, expression of YAP1, a nuclear effector of an inactivated HIPPO pathway, has been identified as one of four molecular subtypes of SCLC. However, the clinicopathological relevance and prognostic significance of YAP1 expression in SCLC stratified by histological subtypes has not been systematically reported to date. Methods: Tumor sections and corresponding formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples of 297 SCLC patients were retrieved from the pathological specimen repository and were subsequently reviewed by pathologists. Forty-six C-SCLCs (combined SCLCs) (15.5%) and 251P-SCLCs (pure SCLCs) (84.5%) were identified respectively. YAP1 expression was examined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and assessed semi-quantitatively on tumor tissue array (TMA). Propensity score was used to match C-SCLCs and P-SCLCs in a ratio of 1 to 2 to balance age, gender, tumor stage and treatment methods. Finally, 46C-SCLCs and 92P-SCLCs were included for prognostic analysis. Results: The positive rate of YAP1 expression was significantly higher in C-SCLCs than P-SCLCs before matching (52.2% vs 29.1%, P = 0.004). After matching by propensity score, the prescribed clinical parameters were well balanced between P-SCLCs and C-SCLCs. Expression of YAP1 was associated worse overall survival (OS) (5- year OS%, 39.0% vs. 74.9%, P = 0.013) and was an independent risk factor for OS (HR = 2.93, 95% CI: 1.01-8.51; P = 0.048) exclusively in C-SCLC. Univariate survival analysis in subgroups of different clinical variables also confirmed the prognostic impact of YAP1 was most significant in C-SCLC. But for P-SCLCs, expression of YAP1 showed no prognostic impact. Conclusions: Expression of YAP1 in small cell components of C-SCLC was significantly higher than that in P-SCLC. Besides, it served as an unfavorable predictor for OS in C-SCLC but not in P-SCLC, which suggested different entities of small cell components with variant YAP1 expression and potential different targetable oncogenic pathway between C-SCLC and P-SCLC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available