4.3 Article

Genes encoding neuropeptide receptors are epigenetic markers in patients with head and neck cancer: a site-specific analysis

Journal

ONCOTARGET
Volume 8, Issue 44, Pages 76318-76328

Publisher

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.19356

Keywords

neuropeptide receptors; GPCR; head and neck cancer; epigenetic markers; metastases

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology of Japan [26462599, 26462600, 16K11228, 16K20239]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K20239, 17K16904, 26462600, 26462599, 17K16903, 16K11228] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Staging and pathological grading systems are useful but imperfect predictors of recurrence in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). To identify potential prognostic markers, we examined the methylation status of eight neuropeptide receptor gene promoters in 231 head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. The NPFFR1, NPFFR2, HCRTR1, HCRTR2, NPY1R, NPY2R, NPY4R, and NPY5R promoters were methylated in 80.5%, 79.2%, 67.1%, 73.2%, 35.1%, 36.4%, 38.5%, and 35.9% of the samples, respectively. In a multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis, the odds ratio for recurrence was 2.044 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.323-3.156; P = 0.001) when the NPY2R promoter was methylated. In patients without lymph node metastasis (n = 100), methylation of NPY2R (compared with methylation of the other seven genes) best correlated with poor disease-free survival (DFS) (odds ratio, 2.492; 95% CI, 1.190-5.215; P = 0.015). In patients with oral cancer (n = 69), methylated NPY1R and NPY2R were independent prognostic factors for poor DFS, both individually and, even more so, in combination (odds ratio, 3.90; 95% CI, 1.523-9.991; P = 0.005). Similar findings were observed for NPY2R and NPY4R in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (n = 162) (odds ratio, 5.663; 95% CI, 1.507-21.28; P = 0.010).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available