The relationship between the expression of VEGF, EGFR, and HER-2 mRNA in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and clinicopathological features of different ethnic groups in Xinjiang

Diagnostic, Prognostic, and Recurrence Monitoring Value of Plasma CYFRA21-1 and NSE Levels in Patients With Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

This study was aimed to evaluate the clinical values of single markers and combination in the diagnosis, short-term efficacy and recurrence risk assessment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

The Silencing of SFRP2 Expression in ESCC Is Due to Methylation of the Gene Promoter

OBJECTIVE

Our aim of the study was to investigate the expression level and methylation status of the secreted frizzled-related protein 2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and to evaluate the clinical utility of the marker.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We first used Immunohistochemistry (ICH) to explore the expression level of secreted frizzled-related protein 2 protein in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma tissues and adjacent normal tissues and then used methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction and bisulfite sequencing polymerase chain reaction to detect methylation status of secreted frizzled-related protein 2.

RESULTS

Secreted frizzled-related protein 2 expression was notably reduced in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, whereas methylation of secreted frizzled-related protein 2 was increased in the majority of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma specimens.

CONCLUSION

Sum up, we have demonstrated the abnormal DNA hypermethylation, causing reduced or absent gene expression. Methylation testing of secreted frizzled-related protein 2 using epigenetic marker may be a significative screening method for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Cetuximab for esophageal cancer: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence indicates that cetuximab (CET) combined with chemoradiotherapy may be effective for patients with esophageal cancer. However, the recent results are still contradictory and no consensus has yet been reached on this issue. To evaluate the clinical effects and safety of CET, we conducted an updated meta-analysis by retrieving published data up to June 2018.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was performed in several electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI database and Chinese Biomedicine Database using subject terms and free terms. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to determine the efficiency and safety of CET.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Five RCTs reported localized esophageal cancer and other five RCTs reported metastatic esophageal cancer. For these patients with localized esophageal cancer, CET could not significantly improve the response rate, overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS, 1-5 years). But CET treatment might increase the incidences of diarrhea (OR = 2.07; CI = 1.01-4.25) and rash (OR = 16.91; CI = 3.20-89.42). For other patients with metastatic esophageal cancer, the addition of CET significantly increased the response rate (OR = 3.34; CI = 1.90-5.88), disease control rate (OR = 2.92; CI = 1.49-5.71) and 2-year overall survival (OR = 2.78; CI = 1.20-6.46) compared with the control group. However, CET could not improve the 1-year overall survival and might make patients with metastatic esophageal cancer more susceptible to rash (OR = 5.50; CI = 2.14-14.14). No significant differences in other adverse effects were found between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggested that adding CET to multimodal therapy significantly improved response rate and disease control rate for patients with metastatic esophageal cancer rather than patients with localized esophageal cancer. CET might be a safe therapeutic choice, but CET failed to significantly improve the overall survival and PFS for patients with localized or metastatic esophageal cancer.

Coexpression of periostin and EGFR in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and their prognostic significance

Background

Both periostin (PN) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) can predict the prognosis of several carcinomas alone. However, coexpression of PN and EGFR in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) still remains unknown. We aimed to clarify their relationship with clinicopathological factors and prognostic significance of their coexpression in ESCC.

Patients and methods

In this single-center retrospective study, immunohistochemistry was performed to evaluate the expression of PN and EGFR in ESCC and paracarcinomatous tissues of 83 patients. The quantitative expression levels of PN and EGFR were examined in two ESCC and tumor-adjacent tissues. The levels of PN and EGFR expression were correlated with clinicopathological parameters by the χ² or Kruskal–Wallis method. Spearman’s rank correlation test was performed to determine the relationship between PN and EGFR expression levels. Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to detect the prognostic factors of disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

The high expression of PN protein in ESCC tissues was significantly associated with tumor length (P=0.044), differentiation grade (P=0.003), venous invasion (P=0.010), invasion depth (P=0.007), lymphatic metastasis (P=0.000), and tumor stage (P=0.000). The high expression of EGFR protein in ESCC tissues was only significantly related to lymphatic metastasis (P=0.000), invasion depth (P=0.022), and tumor stage (P=0.000). Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that high expression of PN was closely correlated to reduced OS (P=0.000) and DFS (P=0.000), which was consistent with EGFR expression. Cox regression analysis identified PN and EGFR as independent poor prognostic factors of OS and DFS in the ESCC patients (P<0.05). Moreover, the risk of death for the ESCC patients with low expression of two biomarkers and high expression of single biomarker was 0.243 times (P=0.000) and 0.503 times (P=0.030), respectively, than that for patients with high expression of two biomarkers.

Conclusion

PN and EGFR are related to miscellaneous clinicopathologic characteristics. Coexpression of PN and EGFR is more closely to be of predictive value on ESCC development and progression, which may offer a novel and potential target strategy for ESCC treatment in the future.