Prognostic Value of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Receptor 1 and Class III Β-Tubulin in Survival for Non-Metastatic Rectal Cancer

Xiang-Quan Kong,Yun-Xia Huang,Jin-Luan Li,Xue-Qing Zhang,Qing-Qin Peng,Li-Rui Tang,Jun-Xin Wu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v10.i10.351
2018-01-01
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology
Abstract:AIM To assess the long-term prognostic value of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR1) and class. beta-tubulin (TUBB3) mRNA expression in non-metastatic rectal cancer. METHODS A total of 75 consecutive patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer from March 2004 to November 2008 were analyzed retrospectively at our institute. The mRNA expressions of VEGFR1 and TUBB3 were detected by multiplex branched DNA liquid-chip technology. The Cutoff Finder application was applied to determine cutoff point of mRNA expression. SPSS software version 22.0 was used for analysis. RESULTS The median follow-up was 102.7 mo (range, 6-153.6). The chi(2) and Fisher's exact tests showed that VEGFR1 expression was related to lymph node metastasis (P = 0.013), while no relationships between TUBB3 and clinicopathological features were observed. Univariate analysis showed that T stage, lymph node metastasis, tumor differentiation, VEGFR1 and TUBB3 mRNA expression were correlated to overall survival (OS) (P = 0.048, P = 0.003, P = 0.052, P = 0.003 and P = 0.015, respectively). Also, lymph node metastasis and VEGFR1 expression independently influenced OS by multivariate analysis (P = 0.027 and P = 0.033). VEGFR1 expression was positively correlated with TUBB3 (P = 0.024). The patients with low expression of both TUBB3 and VEGFR1 presented a better OS (P = 0.003). In addition, the receiver operating characteristic analysis suggested that the combination of lymph node metastasis and VEGFR1 had a more favorable prognostic value (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION VEGFR1 expression and lymph node metastasis independently and jointly affect survival. Moreover, low expression of VEGFR1 and TUBB3 presented a better OS in patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer, which might serve as a potential prognostic factor.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?