4.7 Letter

Evaluation on the diagnostic and prognostic values of long non-coding RNA BLACAT1 in common types of human cancer

Journal

MOLECULAR CANCER
Volume 16, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12943-017-0728-2

Keywords

Long non-coding RNA; BLACAT1; Cancer; TCGA; Diagnosis; Prognosis

Funding

  1. project of science and technology of Liuzhou, Guangxi, China [2014G020403]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A growing number of evidence has indicated that long non-coding RNAs (lncRNA) may have many functions in the development and progression of cancer, and cloud serve as good diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers in cancers. However, these studies often revealed the changes of lncRNAs within a specific cancer type. Here, we focused on BLACAT1 and provided a comprehensive pan-cancer analysis to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic values of BLACAT1. The expression data of BLACAT1 were came from the quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database, respectively. Our results showed that the change of serum BLACAT1 expression was similar to those in matched tissues. The expression level of BLACAT1 both in serum and tissues in multiple cancer types were significantly upregulated compared to those of matched non-cancer participants. The serum BLACAT1 had a high diagnostic performance among these 12 types of cancer. The relative AUC of serum BLACAT1 in cancer patients ranged from 0.833 to 0.967 compared to that in healthy subjects. Surprisingly, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed that the high expression level of BLACAT1 was significantly associated with poor overall survival only in uterine corpus endometrial carcinoma (p = 0.002, log-rank test). These findings demonstrated that BLACAT1 could act as a non-specific diagnostic biomarker for cancers and a potential biomarker for prognosis prediction of endometrial cancer.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available