4.6 Article

Double-positive expression of high-mobility group box 1 and vascular endothelial growth factor C indicates a poorer prognosis in gastric cancer patients

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-11-161

关键词

High-mobility group box 1 protein; VEGF-C; Gastric cancer; Tissue microarray; Prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although many studies have indicated that high-mobility group box 1 protein (HMGB1) is associated with oncogenesis and a worse prognosis, the prognostic value of HMGB1 in gastric cancer (GC) remains unclear. In the present work, we aimed to evaluate the role of HMGB1 in GC and examined whether aberrant expression of both HMGB1 and vascular endothelial growth factor C (VEGF-C) increased the malignant potential of GC. Methods: A total of 166 GC patients and 32 normal subjects were enrolled. HMGB1 and VEGF-C expression was detected by tissue microarrays (TMAs) and immunohistochemical staining. The correlation between HMGB1 and VEGF-C expression and their relationships with clinicopathological GC variables were examined. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazard model to predict the factors related to the patients' overall survival rates. Results: HMGB1 and VEGF-C expression were observed in 81 (48.80%) and 88 (53.01%) tumors, respectively, significantly higher than the rates among the corresponding controls. In addition, HMGB1 and VEGF-C expression were positively correlated (R-2 = 0.972). HMGB1 expression was also closely associated with tumor size, pT stage, nodal status, metastasis status, TNM stage, and poor prognosis. Multivariate survival analysis indicated that patients with HMGB1 and VEGF-C coexpression had the worst prognoses and survival rates (hazard ratio, 2.78; log rank P<0.001). Conclusions: HMGB1 is commonly expressed in GC. Combined evaluation of HMGB1 and VEGF-C may serve as a valuable independent prognostic factor for GC 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

4.6
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