Open Access

Clinical outcome and expression of mutant P53, P16, and Smad4 in lung adenocarcinoma: a prospective study

Contributed equally
World Journal of Surgical Oncology201513:128

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-015-0502-0

Received: 14 October 2014

Accepted: 9 February 2015

Published: 28 March 2015

Abstract

Background

Whole-exome sequencing has shown that lung adenocarcinoma (LAC) can be driven by mutant genes, including TP53, P16, and Smad4. The aim of this study was to clarify protein alterations of P53, P16, and Smad4 and to explore their correlations between the protein alterations and clinical outcome.

Methods

We investigated associations among P53 mutant (P53Mut) expression, and P16 and Smad4 loss-of-expression, with clinical outcome in 120 LAC patients who underwent curative resection, using immunohistochemical (IHC) methods.

Results

Of the 120 patients, 76 (63.3%) expressed P53Mut protein, whereas 54 (45.0%) loss of P16 expressed and 75 (62.5%) loss of Smad4 expressed. P53Mut expression was associated with tumor size (P = 0.041) and pathological stage (P = 0.025). Loss of P16 expression was associated with lymph node metastasis (P = 0.001) and pathological stage (P < 0.001). Loss of Smad4 expression was associated with tumor size (P = 0.033), lymph node metastasis (P = 0.014), pathological stage (P = 0.017), and tumor differentiation (P = 0.022). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that tumor size (P = 0.031), lymph node metastasis (P < 0.001), pathological stage (P < 0.001), P53Mut protein expression (P = 0.038), and loss of p16 or Smad4 expression (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with shorter overall survival(OS), whereas multivariate analysis indicated that lymph node metastasis (P = 0.014) and loss of p16 or Smad4 expression (P < 0.001) were independent prognostic factors. Analysis of protein combinations showed patients with more alterations had poorer survival (P < 0.001). Spearman correlation analysis showed that loss of Smad4 expression inversely correlated with expression of P53Mut (r = 0.196, P = 0.032) and positively with lost P16 expression (r =0.182, P = 0.047).

Conclusions

The findings indicate that IHC status of P53Mut, P16, and Smad4 may predict patient outcomes in LAC.

Keywords

Lung adenocarcinoma Mutant P53 P16 Smad4 Immunohistochemistry Prognosis

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide [1], and the proportion of lung cancer patients with lung adenocarcinoma (LAC) is reportedly increasing [2]. Survival rates for LAC have improved dramatically in the last decade, owing to identification of driver mutations in LAC [3]. For example, EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor have been approved for treatment of LACs that carry EGFR gene mutations, which has greatly improved the prognosis of such patients [4,5]. Discovery of genetic biomarkers for cancers is expected to rapidly expand [6]. Identified driver gene alteration for LAC currently includes mutations of EGFR, KRAS, PIK3CA, BRAF, STK11, DDR2, TP53, Smad4, P16, RET, and ALK, among others [7-11]. As driver genes are found, their relationships to each other and to patients’ prognoses must be verified.

Genetic alterations of P53, P16, and Smad4 have been found in pancreatic cancer, and appear to be strongly associated with its malignant behavior [12-14]. In our previous study with a genetically engineered mouse model, we found P53Mut’s potentially malignant gain-of-function was promoted by inactivating the inhibitory actions of transforming growth factor β (TGF-β), caused by downregulation of smad4, which in turn was synergistically caused by P53 Mut and deficient P16/P19. Although these three genes have been studied individually in LAC, little is known about how they interact, or their combined effect on prognosis. Here, we investigated mutant P53, P16, and Smad4 in LAC by immunohistochemical (IHC) staining and correlated these mutations with clinicopathological features and patients’ OS.

Methods

Patients and tissue samples

This study included 120 patients with LAC who underwent surgical resection between January 2007 and March 2009 at the Nanjing Medical University-Affiliated Cancer Hospital, Nanjing, China. All patients had complete medical records and complete follow-up data. The last follow-up date was March 2014. Patients who died of causes other than LAC before this date were excluded. Their clinicopathological data were collected from medical records and follow-up data were obtained through telephone interviews or by consulting the police population information system. These patients’ mean age was 59.4 years (range: 35 to 85 years), including 58 men and 62 women. Before their surgeries, all patients underwent CT scans or B-ultrasonic examinations to exclude locoregional or widespread metastases. All patients underwent radical resections; no patients received radiotherapy or chemotherapy before surgery. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Nanjing Medical University.

IHC analyses

Specimens of primary LAC from 120 patients were cut into 5-μm tissue sections and deparaffinized by routine methods. The slides were steamed for 20 min in sodium citrate buffer. After cooling for 5 min, the slides were IHC stained for P53Mut, P16 and Smad4. At least five different distinct regions of the primary tumor were IHC-labeled for each case to evaluate for potential heterogeneity. IHC labeling was carried out using P53 Mut mouse monoclonal antibody (clone SC126 diluted 1:100, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Dallas, USA), CDKN2A/P16 rabbit monoclonal antibody (clone SC468 diluted 1:100, Santa Cruz Biotechnology), and Smad4/Dpc4 mouse monoclonal antibody (clone SC-7966, diluted 1:100, Santa Cruz Biotechnology) as reported [15]. Labeling was detected by adding biotinylated secondary antibodies. Positive controls were taken from sections known to be positive from pancreatic carcinoma specimens. For the negative controls, 1% PBS was used in place of primary antibodies. Results were evaluated independently by two experienced pathologists. P53Mut was considered positive when ≥10% of tumor cell nuclei showed strong staining with a dark brown color. P16 and Smad4 were considered positive when ≥ 20% of tumor cell cytoplasm and nuclei showed staining with a brown color (Figure 1).
Figure 1

P53 Mut , P16, and Smad4 expression in lung adenocarcinoma, shown immunohistochemically (SP × 200). (A) P53Mut positive staining detected in nucleus. (B) P16 positive staining detected in cytoplasm and nucleus. (C) Smad4 positive staining detected in cytoplasm and nucleus.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis of group differences was performed using χ 2 tests. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were estimated using life tables; OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the differences were assessed by the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were generated for multivariate analysis. Correlation analysis used the Spearman test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 17.0, SPSS).

Results

Clinicopathological features and outcome

Of the 120 patients (58 men and 62 women), 47 (39.2%) were older than 60 years at the time of surgery; their mean and median ages were 59.4 and 58 years, respectively. At the last follow-up date (March 2014), 25 (20.8%) patients were still alive. Median OS was 35.14 months, with 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of 61.0%, 39.0%, and 33.0%, respectively. In all 120 patients, 24 (20.0%) had T1 tumors, 73 (60.8%) had T2 tumors, and 23 (19.2%) had T3/4 tumors. Lymph node metastases were present in 49/120 (40.8%). We found 26.7% of tumors were well differentiated, 34.1% were moderately differentiated, and 39.2% were poorly differentiated. Only 13 (10.8%) patients had pleural invasion. Of the 120 patients, 37 (30.8%), 47 (39.2%), 36 (30.0%), and 0 (0%) presented with the Union for International Cancer Control stage I, II, III and IV disease, respectively (Table 1).
Table 1

Mutant P53 , P16 , and Smad4 expression in relation to clinicopathological parameters ( n = 120)

 

Mutant P53 expression

P

P16 expression

P

Smad4 expression

P

Negative (%)

Positive (%)

Negative (%)

Positive (%)

Negative (%)

Positive (%)

Age ≤60 year

26 (35.6%)

47 (64.4%)

0.766

34 (46.6%)

39 (53.4%)

0.666

47 (64.4%)

26 (35.6%)

0.595

Age >60 year

18 (38.3%)

29 (61.7%)

 

20 (42.6%)

27 (57.4%)

 

28 (59.6%)

19 (40.4%)

 

Male

25 (43.1%)

33 (56.9%)

0.157

27 (46.6%)

31 (53.4%)

0.741

32 (55.2%)

26 (44.8%)

0.109

Female

19 (30.6%)

43 (69.4%)

 

27 (43.5%)

35 (56.5%)

 

43 (69.4%)

19 (30.6%)

 

Tumor size (cm)

         

 T1 (≤3)

14 (58.3%)

10 (41.7%)

0.041

8 (33.3%)

16 (66.7%)

0.392

11 (45.8%)

13 (54.2%)

0.033

 T2 (>3 ≤ 7)

24 (32.9%)

49 (67.1%)

 

34 (46.6%)

39 (53.4%)

 

45 (61.6%)

28 (38.4%)

 

 T3/4 (>7)

6 (26.1%)

17 (73.9%)

 

12 (52.2%)

11 (47.8%)

 

19 (82.6%)

4 (17.4%)

 

Lymph nodes

         

 Negative

27 (38.0%)

44 (62.0%)

0.709

23 (32.4%)

48 (67.6%)

0.001

38 (53.5%)

33 (46.5%)

0.014

 Positive

17 (34.7%)

32 (65.3%)

 

31 (63.3%)

18 (36.7%)

 

37 (75.5%)

12 (24.5%)

 

Differentiation

         

 Well

16 (50.0%)

16 (50.0%)

0.188

13 (40.6%)

19 (59.4%)

0.077

15 (46.9%)

17 (53.1%)

0.022

 Moderate

13 (31.7%)

28 (68.3%)

 

14 (34.1%)

27 (65.9%)

 

24 (58.5%)

17 (41.5%)

 

 Poor

15 (31.9%)

32 (68.1%)

 

27 (57.4%)

20 (42.6%)

 

36 (76.6%)

11 (23.4%)

 

Pleural invasion

         

 Negative

39 (36.4%)

68 (63.6%)

0.887

47 (43.9%)

60 (56.1%)

0.497

66 (61.7%)

41 (38.3%)

0.596

 Positive

5 (38.5%)

8 (61.5%)

 

7 (53.8%)

6 (46.2%)

 

9 (69.2%)

4 (30.8%)

 

Pathological stage

         

 Stage I

20 (54.1%)

17 (45.9%)

0.025

11 (29.7%)

26 (70.3%)

<0.001

18 (48.6%)

19 (51.4%)

0.017

 Stage II

15 (31.9%)

32 (68.1%)

 

17 (36.2%)

30 (63.8%)

 

28 (59.6%)

19 (40.4%)

 

 Stage III

9 (25.0%)

27 (75.0%)

 

26 (72.2%)

10 (27.8%)

 

29 (80.6%)

7 (19.4%)

 

The italicized values indicate P values less than 0.05.

Protein alterations in LAC

Using IHC labeling, we detected positive P53Mut in 76 patients (63.3%), negative P16 in 54 patients (45.0%), negative Smad4 in 75 patients (62.5%) (Table 1), alterations of all three proteins (P53mut+/P16-/Smad4-) in 28 (23.3%) patients, and normal expression of the three proteins (P53mut-/P16+/Smad4+) in 17 (14.2%) patients (Table 2).
Table 2

Clinicopathological parameters and overall survival in 120 patients

  

Mean (month)

Median (month)

 
 

N

Estimate

95% CI

Estimate

95% CI

P

Age (year)

      

 ≤60

73

41.520

35.148 to 47.892

37.000

24.907 to 49.093

0.883

 >60

47

40.396

32.890 to 47.902

30.000

17.931 to 42.069

 

Sex

      

 M

58

41.563

34.672 to 48.454

36.000

18.585 to 53.415

0.917

 F

62

40.535

33.685 to 47.385

30.000

17.461 to 42.539

 

Tumor size (cm)

      

 T1 (≤3)

24

49.125

40.950 to 57.300

45.000

31.797 to 58.203

0.031

 T2 (3 to 7)

73

41.959

35.673 to 48.245

35.000

17.325 to 52.675

 

 T3/4 (>7)

23

28.587

17.986 to 39.188

15.000

10.340 to 19.660

 

Lymph nodes

      

 Negative

71

50.437

44.488 to 56.387

49.000

39.870 to 58.130

<0.001

 Positive

49

27.497

20.990 to 34.003

17.000

13.571 to 20.429

 

Differentiation

      

 Well

32

48.869

40.548 to 57.190

49.000

33.785 to 64.215

0.067

 Moderate

41

43.975

35.538 to 52.412

35.000

16.180 to 53.820

 

 Poor

47

33.009

25.461 to 40.556

21.000

14.283 to 27.717

 

Pleural invasion

      

 Negative

107

42.446

37.213 to 47.680

37.000

25.020 to 48.980

0.091

 Positive

13

31.385

18.335 to 44.434

23.000

15.954 to 30.046

 

Stage

      

 I

37

57.224

49.411 to 65.036

55.000

42.364 to 67.636

<0.001

 II

47

39.400

31.965 to 46.836

30.000

20.613 to 39.387

 

 III

36

27.111

19.609 to 34.613

16.000

11.296 to 20.704

 

Mutant P53

      

 Negative

44

47.794

39.707 to 55.881

47.000

29.665 to 64.335

0.038

 Positive

76

37.172

31.317 to 43.027

30.000

20.511 to 39.487

 

P16

      

 Negative

54

28.352

22.689 to 34.014

20.000

14.399 to 25.601

<0.001

 Positive

66

51.359

44.929 to 57.788

56.000

40.849 to 71.151

 

Smad4

      

 Negative

75

30.185

25.074 to 35.297

21.000

15.346 to 26.654

<0.001

 Positive

45

59.678

52.491 to 66.866

66.000

50.912 to 81.088

 

Gene expression combinations

     

<0.001

P53mut−/P16+/Smad4−

11

43.364

27.766 to 58.961

47.000

13.553 to 80.447

 

P53mut−/P16+/Smad4+

17

63.824

54.411 to 73.236

74.000

44.191 to 103.809

 

P53mut−/P16−/Smad4+

5

53.800

33.542 to 74.058

49.000

38.265 to 59.735

 

P53mut−/P16−/Smad4−

11

22.000

14.791 to 29.209

21.000

14.746 to 27.254

 

P53mut+/P16+/Smad4−

25

41.451

31.906 to 50.997

32.000

12.416 to 51.584

 

P53mut+/P16+/Smad4+

13

58.011

44.148 to 71.874

66.000

38.979 to 93.021

 

P53mut+/P16−/Smad4+

10

52.100

38.216 to 65.984

54.000

27.658 to 80.342

 

P53mut+/P16−/Smad4−

28

18.185

14.057 to 22.313

15.000

12.976 to 17.024

 

The italicized values indicate P values less than 0.05.

Protein alterations and clinicopathological features

Positive IHC labeling of P53Mut was significantly linked to tumor size (P = 0.041) and pathological stage (P = 0.025). Negative P16 IHC labeling was significantly associated with lymphatic metastasis (P = 0.001) and pathological stage (P < 0.001). Negative Smad4 IHC labeling was associated with tumor size (P = 0.033), lymph node metastasis (P = 0.014), differentiation (P = 0.022), and pathological stage (P = 0.017) (Table 1).

Clinicopathological features and OS

Univariate analysis results were based on log-rank tests of clinicopathological characteristics in relation to OS. Tumor size (P = 0.031), lymph node metastasis (P < 0.001), and pathological stage (P < 0.001) were significantly associated with shorter OS (Table 2).

Protein alterations and OS

Loss of P16 and Smad4 IHC labeling was associated with a significantly shorter OS (P < 0.001). There were significant differences in positive labeling of P53Mut with regard to OS (P = 0.038). Next, based on the number of altered proteins, we classified the patients into eight groups: P53mut−/P16+/Smad4− (n = 11); P53mut−/P16+/Smad4+ (n = 17); P53mut−/P16−/Smad4+ (n = 5); P53mut−/P16−/Smad4− (n = 11); P53mut+/P16+/Smad4− (n = 25); P53mut+/P16+/Smad4+ (n = 13); P53mut+/P16−/Smad4+ (n = 10); and P53mut+/P16−/Smad4− (n = 28). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that the P53mut−/P16+/Smad4+ group had the longest OS and the P53 mut+/P16−/Smad4- group had the shortest OS (P < 0.001). The higher number of altered proteins robustly reflected major differences in survival outcome. The results showed patients with more protein alterations had poorer survival rates (Table 2, Figure 2).
Figure 2

Changes in protein expression and overall survival (OS). (A) Patients’ postoperative OS curves by P53 Mut expression. (B) Patients’ postoperative OS curves by P16 expression. (C) Patients’ postoperative OS curves by Smad4 expression. (D) Patients’ postoperative OS curves by different protein expression combinations.

Multivariate analyses of factors affecting OS

Multivariate models using Cox proportional hazards analysis were conducted with the parameters that were significant at the P < 0.05 level on univariate analysis using log-rank tests. Multivariate analysis showed that lymph node metastasis (relative risk (RR): 2.222, P = 0.014), negative Smad4 IHC labeling (RR: 0.269, P < 0.001) and negative P16 IHC labeling (RR: 0.360, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of OS (Table 3).
Table 3

Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for overall survival ( n = 120)

Factors

Relative risk

95% CI

P

Tumor size

1.423

0.990 to 2.044

0.056

Status of lymph nodes metastasis

2.222

1.172 to 4.210

0.014

Pathological stage

1.075

0.706 to 1.636

0.735

Positive P53 Mut labeling

1.320

0.834 to 2.091

0.236

Negative P16 labeling

0.360

0.226 to 0.572

<0.001

Negative Smad4 labeling

0.269

0.165 to 0.441

<0.001

The italicized values indicate P values less than 0.05.

Correlation analysis of P53mut, P16 and Smad4 expression

Spearman analysis indicated that Smad4 expression was negatively correlated with P53mut expression (r = −0.196, P = 0.032) and positively correlated with P16 expression (r = 0.182, P = 0.047), whereas P16 expression and P53mut expression showed no correlation (Table 4).
Table 4

Relationships among mutant P53 , P16 , and Smad4

 

TP53

P16

Smad4

Mutant P53

   

r

1.000

−0.132

−0.196

P

-

0.150

0.032

P16

   

r

−0.132

1.000

0.182

P

0.150

-

0.047

Smad4

   

r

−0.196

0.182

1.000

P

0.032

0.047

-

The italicized values indicate P values less than 0.05; r, Pearson correlation.

Discussion

The molecular basis of lung cancer is complex and heterogeneous. Over the last decades, identification of driver mutations in LAC has led to the development of targeted agents, several of which are in clinical trials and are already approved for clinical use [6].

Recent whole-exome sequencing studies of numerous human cancers have conclusively shown TP53 to be the most frequently mutated gene in human cancers [15,16]. The P53 protein and its downstream pathways are important in preventing tumor formation, but TP53 mutation is common in cancers. Moreover, unlike other tumor-suppressor genes that only lose their tumor-suppressor functions, the P53 Mut gene may endow its mutant protein with new activities that actively promote tumor progression and increased resistance to anticancer treatments [17]. Because P53Mut proteins have longer half-life than wild-type P53, which can accumulate in the nucleus, we only can detect P53Mut proteins by IHC. Although Ding et al. found that 45% of LAC patients had TP53 mutations [18], the clinical implications of mutant P53 in LAC may still be conflicting. P53 alterations are reported to predict poor survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [19-22]. However, Ahn et al. reported that P53Mut protein expression did not correlate with OS in NSCLC [23]. In our study, the P53 Mut frequency was 63.3%, which was higher than that previously reported. The results of univariate analyses showed that higher P53Mut IHC expression predicted shorter OS. However, the multivariate analysis indicated that higher P53Mut expression did not independently predict poorer OS. Furthermore, mice that express P53Mut reportedly have a more aggressive and metastatic tumor profile than that of mice with null or wild-type P53 [24,25]. Conversely, Jackson et al. reported that P53 Mut protein in lung showed no detectable gain-of-function activity [26]. Although the present study found no relationship between P53Mut and lymph node metastasis, P53Mut expression was linked to tumor size and pathological stage. The role of TP53 mutations as a prognostic marker in NSCLC were reported conflicting. This may be due to the molecular heterogeneity and differing functional effects specific to various TP53 genotypes, methodological issues related to the assessment of mutation status, and design issues related to small sample size and nonhomogeneous groups of patients. Furthermore, the context in which these mutations occur, the initiating events and other secondary molecular alterations, may matter as well. Hence, a larger sample size and more complete experiment methods will be required in the future to obtain reliable and consistent results.

P16 is an important tumor-suppressor gene that has been found to affect cell-cycle by inactivating the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor [27-29]. P16 alterations in NSCLC were mainly homozygous deletions, promoter hypermethylation and point mutations [30]. The relationship between P16 expression and lung cancer is still unclear. Although some studies reported that P16 expression increased in NSCLC [31,32], another found the P16 gene to be a commonly inactivated tumor-suppressor gene in NSCLC, and altered P16 and P53 genes to be frequently found in the same tumors [30]. In this study, loss of P16 was linked to lymph node metastasis and pathological stage, which accords with the study that found complete P16 inactivation in advanced NSCLC [30].

Smad4 is a tumor-suppressor gene with a key role in the TGF-β signaling pathway [33]. Because of its mediatory role in the growth-inhibitory effects of TGF-β in normal cells and its loss in some tumors, Smad4 is considered a tumor-suppressor gene [34]. Alterations of Smad4 gene were reported in pancreatic, colorectal, gastric, esophageal, and breast tumors; its loss is associated with tumorigenesis and progression [35-39]. However, the role of Smad4 in LAC is unclear. NSCLC reportedly features low Smad4 expression, which is closely correlated with lymph node metastasis but not with histological type or differentiation [40]. Our study found the loss of Smad4 was key to LAC occurrence and development; our IHC results showed a 62.5% loss rate for Smad4 in patients with LAC. Negative Smad4 labeling was associated with tumor size, lymph node metastasis, differentiation, and pathological stage, and patients with Smad4 negative specimens had worse OS. Thus, reduced Smad4 expression in LAC may predict poor prognosis.

We also found that patients with more protein alterations had worse OS. Possibly, accumulated protein alterations greatly influence LAC development; this would also indicate that combinations of protein alterations are more accurate predictors for patient outcome than single alterations.

We used Spearman correlation analysis to investigate the relationship among smad4, P53Mut, and P16. Although expressions of Smad4 and P53Mut were inversely correlated, Smad4 expression was positively correlated with P16 expression. A previous study revealed that in SMMC-7221 hepatocellular carcinoma cells, TGF-β inhibited proliferation by upregulating P16 expression and increased apoptosis by activating caspase 3 in a Smad4-dependent manner [41]. Another study showed that low Smad4 expression is related to the high p53 expression in breast tumors [42]. As these results are similar to ours, we speculated that LAC could have a similar mechanism. In another study with results that accorded with ours, knocked-down P53 (using siRNA) reportedly increased Smad4 activity and promoted apoptosis in MCF-7 breast cancer cells [39]. Montserrat et al. found that P16 was a commonly inactivated tumor-suppressor gene in NSCLC and that P16 alterations and P53 mutations were frequently found in the same tumor [30]. However, in this paper, we found no correlation between P16 expression and TP53 expression.

Conclusions

In conclusion, alterations of the P53, P16, and Smad4 proteins were strongly associated with LAC malignancy of LAC. Their IHC assessment at the time of diagnosis may provide a new prognostic method, assisting in deciding optimal treatment strategies for patients with LAC.

Notes

Abbreviations

IHC: 

immunohistochemical

LAC: 

lung adenocarcinoma

NSCLC: 

non-small cell lung cancer

OS: 

overall survival

TGF-β: 

transforming growth factor β

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81372321),China; Jiangsu Provincial Special Program of Medical Science (No. BL2012030), China.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Thoracic Surgery, Nanjing Medical University-Affiliated Cancer Hospital
(2)
Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Molecular and Translational Cancer Research
(3)
Nanjing Jiangbei Peoples’ Hospital
(4)
The Public Health College of Nanjing Medical University

References

  1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Kohno M, Okamoto T, Suda K, Shimokawa M, Kitahara H, Shimamatsu S, et al. Prognostic and therapeutic implications of aromatase expression in lung adenocarcinomas with EGFR mutations. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:3613–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Sakashita S, Sakashita M, Sound Tsao M. Genes and pathology of non-small cell lung carcinoma. Semin Oncol. 2014;41:28–39.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Raso MG, Behrens C, Herynk MH, Liu S, Prudkin L, Ozburn NC, et al. Immunohistochemical expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors identifies a subset of NSCLCs and correlates with EGFR mutation. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:5359–68.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Siegelin MD, Borczuk AC. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in lung adenocarcinoma. Lab Invest. 2014;94:129–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Scarpa A, Sikora K, Fassan M, Rachiglio AM, Cappellesso R, Antonello D, et al. Molecular typing of lung adenocarcinoma on cytological samples using a multigene next generation sequencing panel. PLoS One. 2013;8:e80478.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. An SJ, Chen ZH, Su J, Zhang XC, Zhong WZ, Yang JJ, et al. Identification of enriched driver gene alterations in subgroups of non-small cell lung cancer patients based on histology and smoking status. PLoS One. 2012;7:e40109.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hammerman PS, Sos ML, Ramos AH, Xu C, Dutt A, Zhou W, et al. Mutations in the DDR2 kinase gene identify a novel therapeutic target in squamous cell lung cancer. Cancer Discov. 2011;1:78–89.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Imielinski M, Berger AH, Hammerman PS, Hernandez B, Pugh TJ, Hodis E, et al. Mapping the hallmarks of lung adenocarcinoma with massively parallel sequencing. Cell. 2012;150:1107–20.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kohno T, Otsuka A, Girard L, Sato M, Iwakawa R, Ogiwara H, et al. A catalog of genes homozygously deleted in human lung cancer and the candidacy of PTPRD as a tumor suppressor gene. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2010;49:342–52.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Lipson D, Capelletti M, Yelensky R, Otto G, Parker A, Jarosz M, et al. Identification of new ALK and RET gene fusions from colorectal and lung cancer biopsies. Nat Med. 2012;18:382–4.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Oshima M, Okano K, Muraki S, Haba R, Maeba T, Suzuki Y, et al. Immunohistochemically detected expression of 3 major genes (CDKN2A/p16, TP53, and SMAD4/DPC4) strongly predicts survival in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg. 2013;258:336–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Shin SH, Kim SC, Hong SM, Kim YH, Song KB, Park KM, et al. Genetic alterations of K-ras, p53, c-erbB-2, and DPC4 in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and their correlation with patient survival. Pancreas. 2013;42:216–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Yachida S, White CM, Naito Y, Zhong Y, Brosnan JA, Macgregor-Das AM, et al. Clinical significance of the genetic landscape of pancreatic cancer and implications for identification of potential long-term survivors. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:6339–47.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Yachida S, Vakiani E, White CM, Zhong Y, Saunders T, Morgan R, et al. Small cell and large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas of the pancreas are genetically similar and distinct from well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36:173–84.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kandoth C, McLellan MD, Vandin F, Ye K, Niu B, Lu C, et al. Mutational landscape and significance across 12 major cancer types. Nature. 2013;502:333–9.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Oren M, Rotter V. Mutant p53 gain-of-function in cancer. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2010;2:a001107.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ding L, Getz G, Wheeler DA, Mardis ER, McLellan MD, Cibulskis K, et al. Somatic mutations affect key pathways in lung adenocarcinoma. Nature. 2008;455:1069–75.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Ciancio N, Galasso MG, Campisi R, Bivona L, Migliore M, Di Maria GU. Prognostic value of p53 and Ki67 expression in fiberoptic bronchial biopsies of patients with non small cell lung cancer. Multidiscip Respir Med. 2012;7:29.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lei B, Liu S, Qi W, Zhao Y, Li Y, Lin N, et al. PBK/TOPK expression in non-small-cell lung cancer: its correlation and prognostic significance with Ki67 and p53 expression. Histopathology. 2013;63:696–703.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mitsudomi T, Hamajima N, Ogawa M, Takahashi T. Prognostic significance of p53 alterations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6:4055–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Steels E, Paesmans M, Berghmans T, Branle F, Lemaitre F, Mascaux C, et al. Role of p53 as a prognostic factor for survival in lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature with a meta-analysis. Eur Respir J. 2001;18:705–19.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Ahn HK, Jung M, Ha SY, Lee JI, Park I, Kim YS, et al. Clinical significance of Ki-67 and p53 expression in curatively resected non-small cell lung cancer. Tumour Biol. 2014;35:5735–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Doyle B, Morton JP, Delaney DW, Ridgway RA, Wilkins JA, Sansom OJ. p53 mutation and loss have different effects on tumourigenesis in a novel mouse model of pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma. J Pathol. 2010;222:129–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Morton JP, Timpson P, Karim SA, Ridgway RA, Athineos D, Doyle B, et al. Mutant p53 drives metastasis and overcomes growth arrest/senescence in pancreatic cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:246–51.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Jackson EL, Olive KP, Tuveson DA, Bronson R, Crowley D, Brown M, et al. The differential effects of mutant p53 alleles on advanced murine lung cancer. Cancer Res. 2005;65:10280–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Baldi A, De Luca A, Esposito V, Campioni M, Spugnini EP, Citro G. Tumor suppressors and cell-cycle proteins in lung cancer. Patholog Res Int. 2011;2011:605042.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hall M, Bates S, Peters G. Evidence for different modes of action of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors: p15 and p16 bind to kinases, p21 and p27 bind to cyclins. Oncogene. 1995;11:1581–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson JL, Pillai S, Chellappan SP. Genetic and biochemical alterations in non-small cell lung cancer. Biochem Res Int. 2012;2012:940405.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Sanchez-Cespedes M, Reed AL, Buta M, Wu L, Westra WH, Herman JG, et al. Inactivation of the INK4A/ARF locus frequently coexists with TP53 mutations in non-small cell lung cancer. Oncogene. 1999;18:5843–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Tong J, Sun X, Cheng H, Zhao D, Ma J, Zhen Q, et al. Expression of p16 in non-small cell lung cancer and its prognostic significance: a meta-analysis of published literatures. Lung Cancer. 2011;74:155–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhao W, Huang CC, Otterson GA, Leon ME, Tang Y, Shilo K, et al. Altered p16(INK4) and RB1 expressions are associated with poor prognosis in patients with nonsmall cell lung cancer. J Oncol. 2012;2012:957437.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Jazag A, Ijichi H, Kanai F, Imamura T, Guleng B, Ohta M, et al. Smad4 silencing in pancreatic cancer cell lines using stable RNA interference and gene expression profiles induced by transforming growth factor-beta. Oncogene. 2005;24:662–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Derynck R, Zhang YE. Smad-dependent and Smad-independent pathways in TGF-beta family signalling. Nature. 2003;425:577–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Miyaki M, Iijima T, Konishi M, Sakai K, Ishii A, Yasuno M, et al. Higher frequency of Smad4 gene mutation in human colorectal cancer with distant metastasis. Oncogene. 1999;18:3098–103.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Natsugoe S, Xiangming C, Matsumoto M, Okumura H, Nakashima S, Sakita H, et al. Smad4 and transforming growth factor beta1 expression in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8:1838–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Takaku K, Taketo M. Gastrointestinal tumorigenesis in Smad4 mutant mice. Tanpakushitsu Kakusan Koso. 2001;46:117–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Tamura G, Sakata K, Nishizuka S, Maesawa C, Suzuki Y, Terashima M, et al. Allelotype of adenoma and differentiated adenocarcinoma of the stomach. J Pathol. 1996;180:371–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Wu B, Li W, Qian C, Zhou Z, Xu W, Wu J. Down-regulated P53 by siRNA increases Smad4’s activity in promoting cell apoptosis in MCF-7 cells. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2012;16:1243–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Ke Z, Zhang X, Ma L, Wang L. Expression of DPC4/Smad4 in non-small-cell lung carcinoma and its relationship with angiogenesis. Neoplasma. 2008;55:323–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Huang X, Huang S, Zhang F, Han X, Miao L, Liu Z, et al. Lentiviral-mediated Smad4 RNAi promotes SMMC-7721 cell migration by regulation of MMP-2, VEGF and MAPK signaling. Mol Med Rep. 2010;3:295–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Lacroix M, Leclercq G. Relevance of breast cancer cell lines as models for breast tumours: an update. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;83:249–89.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Bian et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement