4.5 Article

TNK2 Gene Amplification is a Novel Predictor of a Poor Prognosis in Patients With Gastric Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 109, 期 3, 页码 189-197

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.23482

关键词

gastric cancer; gene amplification; prognostic marker; survival analysis; TNK2

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [21-1]
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [25460476]
  3. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology [221S0001]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25460476, 221S0001, 24659161] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Backgrounds and ObjectivesWe previously examined the amplification status of 10 kinase genes (PIK3CA, EPHB3, TNK2, PTK7, EGFR, MET, ERBB2, HCK, SRC, and AURKA) in gastric cancer (GC). This study aimed to determine the prognostic significance of these gene amplifications in GC. MethodsA survival analysis was performed for GC patients. Since TNK2 amplification was identified as a prognostic marker in the analysis, we also examined the functional effect of TNK2 overexpression on gastric cells. ResultsA Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the prognosis of patients with GC exhibiting TNK2 or AURKA amplification was significantly poorer than the prognosis of patients with GC without TNK2 or AURKA amplification. A further multivariate analysis revealed that TNK2 amplification was an independent predictor of a poor survival outcome among patients with GC (hazard ratio, 3.668; 95% confidence interval, 1.513-7.968; P=0.0056). TNK2-overexpressing GC cells showed an increase in cell migration and non-anchored cell growth. Finally, microarray and pathway analyses revealed the aberrant regulation of some cancer-related pathways in TNK2-overexpressing GC cells. ConclusionsThese results suggested that TNK2 amplification is an independent predictor of a poor prognosis in patients with GC and leads to an increase in the malignant potential of GC cells. J. Surg. Oncol. 2014 109:189-197. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

4.5
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