4.1 Article

Co-expression of β-arrestin1 and NF-D0B is associated with cancer progression and poor prognosis in lung adenocarcinoma

期刊

TUMOR BIOLOGY
卷 36, 期 8, 页码 6551-6558

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s13277-015-3349-7

关键词

beta-arrestin1; NF-kappa B; p65; Lung adenocarcinoma; Prognosis

类别

资金

  1. Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [ZR2013HZ001]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81301728]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

beta-arrestin1 and NF-kappa B have been demonstrated to be associated with tumorigenesis, tumor progression, and metastasis. Thus far, there is nevertheless little study about these two molecules in lung adenocarcinoma. The aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between beta-arrestin1 and NF-kappa B expression and the clinicopathological characteristics in lung adenocarcinoma. A total of 115 surgically resected lung adenocarcinoma patients were recruited for the study. Expression of beta-arrestin1 and p65 were detected by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in lung adenocarcinoma tissue samples. Nuclear expression of beta-arrestin1 and p65 were observed in 39.1 % (45/115) and 46.1 % (53/115) cases of lung adenocarcinoma, respectively. And high expression of beta-arrestin1 had negative prognostic impact for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (p = 0.034 and p = 0.033). In addition, overexpression of p65 indicated a significantly poor OS and DFS than those of lower-expression (p = 0.038 and p = 0.041). Furthermore, co-expression of nuclear beta-arrestin1 and p65 correlated with poorer OS and DFS in lung adenocarcinoma patients. Multivariate analysis using the Cox regression model confirmed that co-expression of nuclear beta-arrestin1 and p65 was an independent prognostic factor for tumor progression (p = 0.008). In conclusion, these data indicated that co-expression of nuclear beta-arrestin1 and p65 was a novel predictor for worse prognosis in patients with lung adenocarcinoma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据