4.4 Article

TRAF6 expression is associated with poorer prognosis and high recurrence in urothelial bladder cancer

Journal

ONCOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 14, Issue 2, Pages 2432-2438

Publisher

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/ol.2017.6427

Keywords

TNF receptor-associated factor 6; recurrence; prognosis; metastasis; urothelial bladder cancer

Categories

Funding

  1. Science and Technology Project of Yantai City [2015WS018, 2016WS006]
  2. Youth Research Initiation Foundation of Yuhuangding Hospital [201511]
  3. Shandong Province Medical Science and Technology development project [2016WS0706]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinical significance of TNF receptor-associated factor 6 (TRAF6) expression in urothelial bladder cancer. TRAF6 expression was detected by immunohistochemistry in 126 samples of patients with urothelial bladder cancer. The association between clinicopathological factors and TRAF6 expression was analyzed by chi(2) test. The association between TRAF6 expression, overall survival rate and the recurrence-free survival rate was evaluated in univariate analysis with Kaplan-Meier test and in multivariate analysis with Cox-regression model. In the cohort tested, the rate of high TRAF6 expression was 61.9% (78/126). TRAF6 expression was demonstrated to be significantly associated with positive metastasis (P=0.001) with chi(2) test. Furthermore, TRAF6 expression was demonstrated to be associated with overall survival rate (P=0.016) and recurrence-free survival rate (P=0.016). With Cox-regression model, it was indicate that TRAF6 high expression was an independent predictive factor of poor prognosis (P=0.037) and high recurrence (P=0.011). High TRAF6 expression may predict unfavorable prognosis and high recurrence in urothelial bladder cancer, indicating that TRAF6 may be a potential and promising therapeutic target in urothelial bladder cancer.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available