4.2 Article

High Expression of KIF22/Kinesin-Like DNA Binding Protein (Kid) as a Poor Prognostic Factor in Prostate Cancer Patients

期刊

MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR
卷 24, 期 -, 页码 8190-8197

出版社

INT SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION, INC
DOI: 10.12659/MSM.912643

关键词

Immunochemistry; Carcinogenesis; DNA-Binding Proteins; Prostatic Neoplasms; Survival Analysis

资金

  1. Science & Technology Development Fund of Tianjin Education Commission for Higher Education [2016YD13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Kid (kinesin-like DNA binding protein), a member of microtubule-dependent molecular motor proteins, also known as KIF22, is reported to be associated with carcinogenesis and cancer progression in different types of malignant tumor, but the biologic behavior and clinical outcome of KIF22 in prostate cancer (PCa) has not been well studied. This study aimed to analyze the association between KIF22 and clinical outcome in PCa patients. Material/Methods: The expression of KIF22 in tumor specimens compared with paired paracancerous tissue from 114 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy was detected by immunohistochemistry; results were verified using The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. Subsequently, the relationship between KIF22 expression and clinical prognosis of PCa patients was then statistically analyzed. Results: Both immunohistochemistry and database analysis showed that KIF22 was obviously overexpressed in PCa tis- sues compared with paracancerous tissue. The overexpression of KIF22 at the protein level was significantly related to higher clinical stage (P=0.025), Gleason score (P=0.002), seminal vesicle invasion (P=0.007), and lymph node metastasis (P=0.009). Furthermore, with the overexpression of KIF22 mRNA level in PCa patients, the ontological prognosis of PCa patients was much poorer. Conclusions: High-level expression of KIF22 was related to both tumor progression and adverse clinical outcome. For this reason, KIF22 may become a potential prognostic factor for PCa.

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

4.2
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