4.1 Article

Survivin and HLA-I expression predicts survival of patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma

期刊

TUMOR BIOLOGY
卷 35, 期 8, 页码 8281-8288

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s13277-014-2058-y

关键词

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma; Survivin; HLA class I molecules; Immunohistochemistry; Prognosis

类别

资金

  1. Hunan Provincial Innovation Foundation for Postgraduate [250171380100015]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Central South University [2014zzts079]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Altered expression of survivin and leukocyte antigen class I (HLA-I) proteins is associated with tumor progression. This study investigated their expressions in clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) tissues for association with a clinical significance of ccRCC patients. Ninety ccRCC and 20 normal tissue samples (i.e., control) were immunohistochemically stained for survivin and HLA-I expression for an association with clinicopathological data and survival of ccRCC patients. Survivin protein was expressed in 82.2 % (74/90) of ccRCC tissue samples compared to 0 % in the normal tissues, and HLA-I protein was expressed in 90 % (18/20) of the normal tissues vs. 67.8 % (61/90) in ccRCC samples. Survivin expression was associated with tumor grade, stage, and lymph node metastasis (p = 0.000, p = 0.016, and p = 0.001, respectively). Conversely, lost HLA-I expression did not have any associations with clinicopathological data (p > 0.05). Survivin-negative patients had a higher tumor-free survival rate than patients with survivin expression (p = 0.037). Patients with normal HLA-I levels had a higher tumor-free survival rate than those with reduced HLA-I levels (p = 0.02). The uni- and multivariate analyses indicated that expression of survivin and HLA-I, individually and in combination, was an independent predictor for survival of ccRCC patients. Overexpression of survivin but reduced HLA-I expression is useful in the prediction of tumor-free survival of ccRCC patients.

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