4.7 Article

Low miR-145 expression level is associated with poor pathological differentiation and poor prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer

期刊

BIOMEDICINE & PHARMACOTHERAPY
卷 69, 期 -, 页码 301-305

出版社

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2014.12.019

关键词

miR-145; Pathological differentiation; Prognosis; NSCLC

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81101705, 81272532, 81172140]
  2. Jiangsu Province Clinical Science and Technology Projects (Clinical Research Center) [BL2012008]
  3. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions [JX10231801]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK2011852]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the first cause of cancer related death in the world. Biomarkers to predict the relapse and drug resistance could be extremely useful for a clinical doctor to monitor high risk patients and select rational regimen. miRNAs play an important role in lung cancer and detection samples are relatively easy to be obtained, miRNAs could become a promising means of comprehending the oncogenesis and pathogenesis of lung cancer. This study aimed to investigate the function of miR-145 to work as a biomarker in NSCLC. miR-145 expression level in 48 NSCLC tumor tissues and their matched normal tissues were detected by qRT-PCR. miR-145 in 18 paraffin-embedded samples underwent chemotherapy and were assessed by in situ hybridization (ISH). Here we show that miR-145 was down-regulated in NSCLC tissues; down-regulation of miR-145 was correlated with late clinical stage and poorly differentiated carcinoma, and, low expression level of miR-145 could also predict chemotherapy resistance and shorter disease-free survival (DFS). These findings indicated that miR-145 expression may be a useful prognostic marker that could be used for predicting poor differentiation, chemo-resistance and shore DFS. (C) 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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