4.7 Article

The Prognostic Significance of FOXD1 Expression in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13030530

关键词

forkhead box D1; head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; clinicopathologic characteristics; survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the clinical significance of FOXD1 in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The results showed that FOXD1 expression was closely associated with postoperative recurrence and patients with high FOXD1 expression had poorer prognoses. Multivariate analysis revealed that FOXD1 was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival and disease-free survival in HNSCC patients.
It has been reported that forkhead box D1 (FOXD1) plays an established role in human early embryonic development and is broadly involved in various malignancies. However, there is limited information regarding FOXD1 expression in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). This present study aimed to explore the clinical significance of FOXD1 in patients with HNSCC. Tissue microarrays of 334 primary HNSCC patients who underwent surgery between 2008 and 2010 at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center were investigated by immunohistochemistry regarding FOXD1 expression. chi(2) test was used to estimate the relationship of FOXD1 expression with clinicopathologic characteristics. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify FOXD1 expression as an independent prognostic indicator of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). FOXD1 expression is closely associated with postoperative recurrence. HNSCC patients with high FOXD1 expression have poorer prognoses than the low-expression group (p < 0.05). According to multivariate analysis, FOXD1 was an independent prognostic factor for OS and DFS. The results revealed that FOXD1 could be a prognostic factor for HNSCC and might serve as a potential target for novel therapies.

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