Publications (2)5.33 Total impact
-
Article: High expression of high mobility group box 1 (hmgb1) predicts poor prognosis for hepatocellular carcinoma after curative hepatectomy.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: High mobility group box 1(HMGB1) overexpression has been reported in a variety of human cancers. However, the role of HMGB1 in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. The aim of present study was to analyze HMGB1 protein expression in tumor, para-tumor and normal tissue and to assess its prognostic significance for HCC after curative hepatectomy. The levels of HMGB1 mRNA and protein in tumor, para-tumor and normal tissue were evaluated in 11 HCC cases by Reverse Transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and Western blot. Additionally, HMGB1 protein expression in 161 HCC was analyzed by immunohistochemistry and correlated with clinicopathological characteristics and survivals. Student's t-test, spearman's rank correlation, Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox proportional hazards regression model were used to analyze the data. By RT-PCR and Western blot, the levels of HMGB1 mRNA and protein were significantly higher in HCC, compared to that in para-tumor (p < 0.001) and normal tissue (p < 0.001). Immunohistochemical staining revealed that high expression of HMGB1 was detected in 42.9% (69/161) HCC cases. High expression of HMGB1 was significantly associated with incomplete encapsulation (p = 0.035) and advanced TNM stage (p = 0.036). Multivariate analysis showed that high expression of HMGB1 was an independent prognostic factor for both overall (p = 0.009, HR = 1.834, 95%CI: 1.167-2.881) and disease-free survival (p = 0.018, HR = 1.622, 95%CI: 1.088-2.419), along with tumor size. Subgroup analysis revealed that high expression of HMGB1 predicted poorer overall survival only for tumor >5 cm (p = 0.031), but not for tumor ≤5 cm (p = 0.101). HMGB1 protein might contribute to the malignant progression of HCC, high expression of HMGB1 predicts poor prognosis for patients with HCC after curative hepatectomy, especially for patients with tumor >5 cm.Journal of Translational Medicine 07/2012; 10:135. · 3.41 Impact Factor -
Article: Elevated neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio might predict poor prognosis for colorectal liver metastasis after percutaneous radiofrequency ablation.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Elevated neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has been shown to be a predictor of poor survival in certain malignancies. We hypothesised NLR might predict prognosis for patients with colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) undergoing percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA). A cohort of 92 consecutive patients with metachronous CRLM treated with RFA was retrospectively reviewed. Baseline clinico-pathological characteristics, recurrence, overall and disease-free survival were compared according to preoperative NLR level. Prognostic factors were assessed by multivariate analysis. Elevated NLR (>5) was recorded in 21 patients (22.8%). No correlations between NLR and clinico-pathological characteristics were identified. Complete ablation was achieved in 90 patients (97.8%). After RFA, extrahepatic metastases (p = 0.015) were significantly higher in the elevated NLR group whilst local (p = 0.526) and intrahepatic (p = 0.715) recurrence. The 1, 3 and 5 years overall survival rates of 92 patients were 86.5%, 74.1%, 36.3%, and disease-free survival was 64.3%, 32.8%, 22.4% respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that NLR was an independent prognostic factor for both overall (p = 0.039, HR = 3.59, 95%CI 1.54-9.67) and disease-free survival (p = 0.022, HR = 3.19, 95%CI 1.87-8.24). The 1, 3, 5 years overall survival rates were 86.9%, 61.1%, 41.7% for the normal NLR group, and 85.2%, 53.2%, 18.4% for the elevated NLR group respectively (p = 0.036); the corresponding disease-free survival was 64.9%, 38.7%, 26.7% and 47.6%, 14.3%, 9.5% respectively (p = 0.047). Elevated NLR (>5) might predict more extrahepatic metastasis and poorer survival for patients with CRLM after RFA.International Journal of Hyperthermia 01/2012; 28(2):132-40. · 1.92 Impact Factor
