Identification of protein expression signatures in gastric carcinomas using clustering analysis

Background and Aim: The identification of gastric carcinomas (GC) has traditionally been based on histomorphology. Recently, DNA microarrays have successfully been used to identify tumors through clustering of the expression profiles. Random forest clustering is widely used for tissue microarrays and other immunohistochemical data, because it handles highly-skewed tumor marker expressions well, and weighs the contribution of each marker according to its relatedness with other tumor markers. In the present study, we e identified biologically- and clinically-meaningful groups of GC by hierarchical clustering analysis of immunohistochemical protein expression. Methods: We selected 28 proteins (p16, p27, p21, cyclin D1, cyclin A, cyclin B1, pRb, p53, c-met, c-erbB-2, vascular endothelial growth factor, transforming growth factor [TGF]-beta I, TGF-beta II, MutS homolog-2, bcl-2, bax, bak, bcl-x, adenomatous polyposis coli, clathrin, E-cadherin, beta-catenin, mucin (MUC) 1, MUC2, MUC5AC, MUC6, matrix metalloproteinase [ MMP]-2, and MMP-9) to be investigated by immunohistochemistry in 482 GC. The analyses of the data were done using a random forest-clustering method. Results: Proteins related to cell cycle, growth factor, cell motility, cell adhesion, apoptosis, and matrix remodeling were highly expressed in GC. We identified protein expressions associated with poor survival in diffuse-type GC. Conclusions: Based on the expression analysis of 28 proteins, we identified two groups of GC that could not be explained by any clinicopathological variables, and a subgroup of long-surviving diffuse-type GC patients with a distinct molecular profile. These results provide not only a new molecular basis for understanding the biological properties of GC, but also better prediction of survival than the classic pathological grouping.Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo [98/14335-2

Why Are Women With Cervical Cancer Not Being Diagnosed in Preinvasive Phase? An Analysis of Risk Factors Using a Hierarchical Model

Objective: To assess the risk factors for delayed diagnosis of uterine cervical lesions. Materials and Methods: This is a case-control study that recruited 178 women at 2 Brazilian hospitals. The cases (n = 74) were composed of women with a late diagnosis of a lesion in the uterine cervix (invasive carcinoma in any stage). The controls (n = 104) were composed of women with cervical lesions diagnosed early on (low-or high-grade intraepithelial lesions). The analysis was performed by means of logistic regression model using a hierarchical model. The socioeconomic and demographic variables were included at level I (distal). Level II (intermediate) included the personal and family antecedents and knowledge about the Papanicolaou test and human papillomavirus. Level III (proximal) encompassed the variables relating to individuals' care for their own health, gynecologic symptoms, and variables relating to access to the health care system. Results: The risk factors for late diagnosis of uterine cervical lesions were age older than 40 years (odds ratio [OR] = 10.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3-48.4), not knowing the difference between the Papanicolaou test and gynecological pelvic examinations (OR, = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3-4.9), not thinking that the Papanicolaou test was important (odds ratio [OR], 4.2; 95% CI, 1.3-13.4), and abnormal vaginal bleeding (OR, 15.0; 95% CI, 6.5-35.0). Previous treatment for sexually transmissible disease was a protective factor (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8) for delayed diagnosis. Conclusions: Deficiencies in cervical cancer prevention programs in developing countries are not simply a matter of better provision and coverage of Papanicolaou tests. The misconception about the Papanicolaou test is a serious educational problem, as demonstrated by the present study

Prognostic value of NDRG1 and SPARC protein expression in breast cancer patients

An increasing number of studies have shown altered expression of secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC) and N-myc down-regulated gene (NDRG1) in several malignancies, including breast carcinoma; however, the role of these potential biomarkers in tumor development and progression is controversial. In this study, NDRG1 and SPARC protein expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays containing breast tumor specimens from patients with 10 years of follow-up. NDRG1 and SPARC protein expression was determined in 596 patients along with other prognostic markers, such as ER, PR, and HER2. The status of NDRG1 and SPARC protein expression was correlated with prognostic variables and patient clinical outcome. Immunostaining revealed that 272 of the 596 cases (45.6%) were positive for NDRG1 and 431 (72.3%) were positive for SPARC. Statistically significant differences were found between the presence of SPARC and NDRG1 protein expression and standard clinicopathological variables. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that NDRG1 positivity was directly associated with shorter disease-free survival (DFS, P < 0.001) and overall survival (OS, P < 0.001). In contrast, patients expressing low levels of SPARC protein had worse DFS (P = 0.001) and OS (P = 0.001) compared to those expressing high levels. Combined analysis of the two markers indicated that DFS (P < 0.001) and OS rates (P < 0.001) were lowest for patients with NDRG1-positive and SPARC-negative tumors. Furthermore, NDRG1 over-expression and SPARC down-regulation correlated with poor prognosis in patients with luminal A or triple-negative subtype breast cancer. On multivariate analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model, NDRG1 and SPARC protein expression were independent prognostic factors for both DFS and OS of breast cancer patients. These data indicate that NDRG1 over-expression and SPARC down-regulation could play important roles in breast cancer progression and serve as useful biomarkers to better define breast cancer prognosis.FAPESP (Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo)[06/01026-0]CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico)[304949/2006