4.6 Article

Loss of DUSP4 Expression as a Prognostic Biomarker in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Journal

DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 11, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11101939

Keywords

renal cell carcinoma; DUSP4; dual-specificity protein phosphatase 4; prognosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Loss of DUSP4 expression in clear cell renal cell carcinoma is significantly correlated with old age, high histologic grade, tumor necrosis, and high pT category, leading to poor clinical outcomes. Low DUSP4 mRNA expression is also associated with shorter overall survival in patients.
Dual-specificity protein phosphatase 4 (DUSP4) is a negative regulator of mitogen-activated protein kinases. The prognostic impact of DUSP4 expression in renal cell carcinoma is not well studied. Therefore, we evaluated the clinicopathological implications of DUSP4 expression in clear cell renal cell carcinoma by performing immunohistochemistry (IHC). The clinical outcome according to DUSP4 expression was evaluated through survival analyses, and the association between mRNA expression and prognosis was confirmed by online analysis (Kaplan-Meier plotter). Loss of DUSP4 expression was noted in most histological subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Loss of DUSP4 expression in clear cell renal cell carcinoma was significantly correlated with old age (p = 0.033), high histologic grade (p < 0.001), tumor necrosis (p < 0.001), and high pT category (p < 0.001). In survival analysis, loss of DUSP4 expression was associated with poor clinical outcomes in cancer-specific survival and recurrence-free survival (p = 0.010 and p = 0.007, respectively). Upon TCGA data analysis, patients with low DUSP4 mRNA expression showed a shorter overall survival (p = 0.023). These results suggest that loss of DUSP4 expression can be used as a potential biomarker for predicting clinical outcomes in clear cell renal cell carcinoma patients.

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