4.6 Article

Identification of a metabolism-related gene expression prognostic model in endometrial carcinoma patients

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07345-8

关键词

Metabolism; TCGA; Endometrial carcinoma; Prognostic model; Nomogram

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundMetabolic abnormalities have recently been widely studied in various cancer types. This study aims to explore the expression profiles of metabolism-related genes (MRGs) in endometrial cancer (EC).MethodsWe analyzed the expression of MRGs using The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data to screen differentially expressed MRGs (DE-MRGs) significantly correlated with EC patient prognosis. Functional pathway enrichment analysis of the DE-MRGs was performed. LASSO and Cox regression analyses were performed to select MRGs closely related to EC patient outcomes. A prognostic signature was developed, and the efficacy was validated in part of and the entire TCGA EC cohort. Moreover, we developed a comprehensive nomogram including the risk model and clinical features to predict EC patients' survival probability.ResultsForty-seven DE-MRGs were significantly correlated with EC patient prognosis. Functional enrichment analysis showed that these MRGs were highly enriched in amino acid, glycolysis, and glycerophospholipid metabolism. Nine MRGs were found to be closely related to EC patient outcomes: CYP4F3, CEL, GPAT3, LYPLA2, HNMT, PHGDH, CKM, UCK2 and ACACB. Based on these nine DE-MRGs, we developed a prognostic signature, and its efficacy in part of and the entire TCGA EC cohort was validated. The nine-MRG signature was independent of other clinical features, and could effectively distinguish high- and low-risk EC patients and predict patient OS. The nomogram showed excellent consistency between the predictions and actual survival observations.ConclusionsThe MRG prognostic model and the comprehensive nomogram could guide precise outcome prediction and rational therapy selection in clinical practice.

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