4.5 Article

Friend Leukemia Virus Integration 1 Expression Has Prognostic Significance in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma

期刊

TRANSLATIONAL ONCOLOGY
卷 7, 期 4, 页码 493-502

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.tranon.2014.04.015

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81272195, 81071687, 81372133]
  2. State 863 Program of China [SS2012AA020403]
  3. State 973 Program of China [2014CB542005]
  4. State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the expression pattern and prognostic value of friend leukemia virus integration 1 (FLI-1) in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). Immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining of FLI-1 was performed in specimens from 198 untreated NPC patients. Ninety-nine patients were randomly assigned to the training set to analyze the prognostic value of FLI-1 and other clinicopathological characteristics, while the others were assigned to the testing set for validation. Clinicopathological data were compared using the Pearson chi-square test. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model to test independent prognostic factors and calculate the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Cytoplasmic FLI-1 expression positively correlated with N stage, distant metastasis and death (P<0.05) and also predicted poorer overall survival (OS) (P=0.014), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) (P=0.010), progression-free survival (PFS) (P=0.031). In multivariate analysis, FLI-1 expression and clinical stage were both independent prognostic factors of poor OS and DMFS. Prognoses of patients in the training set, the testing set, and the entire set were clearly divided into four risk subgroups by supplementing FLI-1 with clinical stage. These results indicate that FLI-1 expression is an independent prognostic factor for NPC patients and suggest that supplementing FLI-1 with clinical stage could be helpful for more accurate risk definition.

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

4.5
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