Pancreas · 2024
Poly (Adp-Ribose) Polymerase-1 (PARP-1) Is a Good Prognostic Marker for Pancreatic/Periampullary Cancers.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yim Kwangil, Seo Kyung Jin, Abdul-Ghafar Jamshid, Alam Mohammad Rizwan, Paik Kwang Yeol, Chong Yosep, Shin Ok Ran
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Periampullary cancer (PAC) is highly aggressive with no effective adjuvant therapy or prognostic markers. Recently, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 (PARP-1) has emerged as a target in solid cancers, and its relationship with epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) has been observed. However, the relationship between PARP-1 and EMT in PAC has not explored well.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed the prognostic significance of PARP-1 in 190 PACs patients and correlated it with EMT markers, including FGF8, FGFR4, MMP2, MMP3, Snail, and ZEB1. Immunohistochemistry for PARP-1 and EMT markers was performed using a tissue microarray.
RESULTS: PARP-1 and FGF8 expression were associated with better survival unlike other solid cancers ( P = 0.006 and P = 0.003), and MMP3 and ZEB1 expression were associated with poor prognosis in multivariate and survival analyses ( P = 0.009 and P < 0.001). In addition, PARP-1 is related negatively to Snail but not related with other EMT markers, implying an independent mechanism between PARP-1 and EMT in PACs. PARP-1 and FGF8 are independent good survival markers in PACs unlike other solid cancers.
CONCLUSIONS: PARP-1 and FGF8 in PACs could not be related to the EMT pathway but must be rather understood in light of similar cancer-protective roles. Further studies are required on EMT-associated immune markers in PACs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed the prognostic significance of PARP-1 in 190 PACs patients and correlated it with EMT markers, including FGF8, FGFR4, MMP2, MMP3, Snail, and ZEB1. Immunohistochemistry for PARP-1 and EMT markers was performed using a tissue microarray.
RESULTS: PARP-1 and FGF8 expression were associated with better survival unlike other solid cancers ( P = 0.006 and P = 0.003), and MMP3 and ZEB1 expression were associated with poor prognosis in multivariate and survival analyses ( P = 0.009 and P < 0.001). In addition, PARP-1 is related negatively to Snail but not related with other EMT markers, implying an independent mechanism between PARP-1 and EMT in PACs. PARP-1 and FGF8 are independent good survival markers in PACs unlike other solid cancers.
CONCLUSIONS: PARP-1 and FGF8 in PACs could not be related to the EMT pathway but must be rather understood in light of similar cancer-protective roles. Further studies are required on EMT-associated immune markers in PACs.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
HumansPancreatic NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorFemaleMaleEpithelial-Mesenchymal TransitionMiddle AgedAgedPrognosisPoly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase-1ImmunohistochemistryAdultAmpulla of VaterPoly(ADP-ribose) PolymerasesAged, 80 and overKaplan-Meier EstimateTissue Array AnalysisCommon Bile Duct NeoplasmsMultivariate AnalysisSnail Family Transcription Factors