4.6 Article

A 4-gene signature predicts prognosis of uterine serous carcinoma

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-07834-4

关键词

Uterine serous carcinoma; Biomarkers; Signature; Mortality; Recurrence

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study identified a 4-gene signature including KRT23, CXCL1, SOX9, and ABCA10 as a potential prognostic indicator for uterine serous carcinoma, showing superior predictive performance for overall survival and recurrence-free survival.
BackgroundUterine serous carcinoma (USC) is an aggressive type of endometrial cancer that accounts for up to 40% of endometrial cancer deaths, creating an urgent need for prognostic biomarkers.MethodsUSC RNA-Seq data and corresponding patients' clinical records were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas and Genotype-Tissue Expression datasets. Univariate cox, Lasso, and Multivariate cox regression analyses were conducted to forge a prognostic signature. Multivariable and univariable cox regression analysis and ROC curve evaluated the prediction efficiency both in the training and testing sets.ResultsWe uncovered 1385 genes dysregulated in 110 cases of USC tissue relative to 113 cases of normal uterine tissue. Functional enrichment analysis of these genes revealed the involvement of various cancer-related pathways in USC. A novel 4-gene signature (KRT23, CXCL1, SOX9 and ABCA10) of USC prognosis was finally forged by serial regression analyses. Overall patient survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were significantly lower in the high-risk group relative to the low-risk group in both the training and testing sets. The area under the ROC curve of the 4-gene signature was highest among clinicopathological features in predicting OS and RFS. The 4-gene signature was found to be an independent prognostic indicator in USC and was a superior predictor of OS in early stage of USC.ConclusionsOur findings highlight the potential of the 4-gene signature as a guide for personalized USC treatment.

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