4.6 Article

WRAP53 is an independent prognostic factor in rectal cancer- a study of Swedish clinical trial of preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer patients

Journal

BMC CANCER
Volume 12, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-12-294

Keywords

WRAP53; Radiotherapy; Prognosis; Rectal cancer

Categories

Funding

  1. Swedish Cancer Foundation
  2. Swedish Research Council
  3. Health Research Council in the South-East of Sweden

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Expression of WRAP53 protein has oncogenic properties and it is up regulated in several types of tumors. Methods: We examined expression of WRAP53 protein in rectal cancers and analyzed its relationship to the response to preoperative radiotherapy and patient survival. The WRAP53 protein was examined by immunohistochemistry in normal mucosa, primary tumors and lymph node metastases from 143 rectal cancer patients participated in a Swedish clinical trial of preoperative radiotherapy. Results: Frequency of WRAP53 protein expression was increased in primary rectal cancer compared to the normal mucosa (p < 0.05). In non-radiotherapy group positive WRAP53 in primary tumors (p = 0.03, RR, 3.73, 95% CI, 1.13-11.89) or metastases (p = 0.01, RR, 4.11, 95% CI, 1.25-13.14), was associated with poor prognosis independently of stages and differentiations. In radiotherapy group, positive WRAP53 in the metastasis correlated with better survival (p = 0.04). An interaction analysis showed that the correlations of WRAP53 with the prognostic significance with and without radiotherapy in the metastasis differed (p = 0.01). In the radiotherapy group, expression of WRAP53 in metastases gave a better outcome (p = 0.02, RR, 0.32, 95% CI, 0.13-0.84), and an interaction analysis showed significance between the two groups (p = 0.01). Conclusion: WRAP53 may be a new biomarker used to predict prognosis and to select suitable patients for preoperative radiotherapy.

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