4.6 Article

Negative Expression of CPSF2 Predicts a Poorer Clinical Outcome in Patients with Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma

Journal

THYROID
Volume 25, Issue 9, Pages 1020-1025

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/thy.2015.0079

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Seoul, Korea [2014-598]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The BRAF(V600E) mutation is a promising prognostic biomarker for patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC), but its prevalence differs widely among different geographic regions. A recent study reported that loss of the Cleavage and Polyadenylation Specificity Factor Subunit 2 (CPSF2) gene was associated with increased cellular invasion, cancer stem cells, and aggressiveness of PTC. This study aimed at evaluating CPSF2 protein expression as a prognostic marker for PTC in a region with a high prevalence of the BRAF(V600E) mutation, Korea. Methods: This study included 159 patients with classical PTC who underwent a total thyroidectomy and received ablative doses of I-131. The expression of CPSF2 protein was evaluated by immunohistochemistry and graded semi-quantitatively. The presence of the BRAF(V600E) mutation was evaluated by direct sequencing. Results: Negative protein expression of CPSF2 was observed in 34 (21.3%) of the 159 PTCs. In multivariate analysis, negative CPSF2 expression was significantly associated with cervical lymph node metastasis (odds ratio [OR]=2.56, p=0.28), and distant metastasis (OR=3.48, p=0.02). After adjusting for age, sex, tumor size, extrathyroidal invasion, lymphovascular invasion, and the BRAF(V600E) mutation, the CPSF2-negative group had a significantly lower recurrence-free survival compared to the CPSF2-positive group (hazard ratio=2.14, p=0.03). Conclusion: Negative protein expression of CPSF2 is independently associated with a poor clinical outcome in PTC. CPSF2 could be a useful prognostic marker for PTC in regions with a high prevalence of the BRAF(V600E) mutation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available