Expression of growth‑regulated oncogene‑1, hepatocyte growth factor, platelet‑derived growth factor‑AA and soluble E‑selectin and their association with high‑risk human papillomavirus infection in squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix

  • Authors:
    • Ye Zhang
    • Jian‑Zhong Wu
    • Yong‑Qin Yang
    • Rong Ma
    • Jun‑Ying Zhang
    • Ji‑Feng Feng
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: June 2, 2014     https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2014.2293
  • Pages: 1013-1024
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical significance and prognostic value of growth‑regulated oncogene‑1 (GRO‑1), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), platelet‑derived growth factor‑AA (PDGF‑AA), soluble E‑selectin (sE‑selectin) and high‑risk human papillomavirus (HPV; types 16, 18/45, 31 and 33/52/58/67) infection in cervical squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC). A total of 426 cases were enrolled in the present study, of which 292 cases were patients with CSCC, 43 were patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and 91 were healthy controls. Luminex xMAP technology was used to detect the serum levels of GRO‑1, HGF, PDGF‑AA and sE‑selectin in all cases and two‑channel fluorescence quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to determine HPV DNA in cervical scrapings from CSCC and CIN patients. The results demonstrated that the serum levels of GRO‑1, HGF and sE‑selectin were significantly higher in patients with CSCC compared with patients with CIN and the healthy controls (P<0.0001). Compared with the CIN patients, the HPV positive rate in the CSCC patients significantly increased (P=0.013). The four factors were correlated with certain clinicopathological variables of CSCC patients to a certain degree (P<0.05) and the levels of HGF were closely associated with HPV infection (P=0.039). The receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrated that HGF obtained the highest diagnostic value compared with the other three factors. Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that the serum levels of HGF (P<0.0001), FIGO stage (P<0.0001) and pelvic lymph node metastasis (P=0.001) were independent prognostic factors in patients with CSCC, while high‑risk HPV infection did not show any significance in this analysis. These results demonstrated that HGF may be a useful prognostic biomarker rather than high‑risk HPV types in patients with CSCC.

Introduction

In recent years, cervical cancer has become the third most common female cancer and in 2008 there were ~529,000 new cases worldwide (1). Cervical squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) is the most common pathological type of cervical cancer followed by cervical adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma (2). The association between human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and the occurrence of cervical cancer has been verified by numerous studies (3,4). HPV types 16, 18, 58, 33, 52, 45, 31 and 35 are the most common types in cervical cancer patients from Asia (5). However, the prognostic value of HPV in cervical cancer remains controversial. Certain studies have demonstrated an association between HPV 18-related cervical cancer and a poor prognosis (6,7). However, in previous studies, HPV-positive cervical cancer patients demonstrated a more favorable prognosis than HPV-negative patients (8,9). Whereas certain authors were unable to find any significance between HPV types and their prognosis (10). Thus, the aim of the present study was to identify potent molecular markers associated with the prognosis of CSCC.

Growth-regulated oncogene-1 (GRO-1) is a member of the CXC chemokine family which contains an ELR motif (Glu-Leu-Arg) at the NH2 terminal and is important in angiogenesis (11). Overexpression of the GRO gene was initially identified in transformed Chinese hamster cells (12). An elevated expression of GRO-1 was detected in numerous malignancies (13,14). Hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) was first identified as a type of mitogen extracted from hepatectomized rats in 1984 (15). The HGF/c-Met signaling pathway composed of HGF and its functional receptor c-Met promotes tumorigenesis, progression and tumor cell invasion (16). Platelet-derived growth factor-AA (PDGF-AA) is a member of the PDGF family which can promote the production of angiogenic factors, resulting in tumor angiogenesis (17). E-selectin is a member of the selectin family which is a family of cellular adhesion molecules contributing to cell-cell adhesion and is associated with tumor progression and metastasis. Soluble E-selectin (sE-selectin) can be used as a biomarker in the serum to detect and monitor the occurrence and development of cancer (18).

The roles of serum levels of GRO-1, HGF, PDGF-AA and sE-selectin as biomarkers have not yet been elucidated compared with the important roles of high-risk HPV in CSCC. Studies on these four factors in cervical cancer are rare. The aim of the present study was to analyze the clinical significance and prognostic value of these four factors and high-risk HPV infection in CSCC.

Materials and methods

Patients

A total of 292 females with CSCC, 43 females with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and 91 healthy age-matched females were recruited for physical examination from the Jiangsu Cancer Hospital (Nanjing, China) between February 2010 and March 2013. In total, 292 cases with CSCC were histopathologically confirmed as CSCC for the first time and did not undergo any treatment prior to collecting the specimens. All the CSCC patients were staged on the basis of the latest International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging. The characteristics of all the cases are shown in Table I.

Table I

Characteristics of all the cases.

Table I

Characteristics of all the cases.

Patients with

CharacteristicCSCC n (%)CIN n (%)Healthy controls n (%)
Age, median (range)48 (27–84)45 (29–61)43 (33–72)
FIGO Stage or CIN classification
 I40 (13.70)12 (29.91)
 II108 (36.99)18 (41.86)
 III115 (39.38)13 (30.23)
 IV29 (9.93)
Metastasis
 Positive29 (9.93)
 Negative263 (90.07)
Grading
 143 (14.73)
 2147 (50.34)
 3102 (34.93)
Pelvic nodal status
 Positive150 (51.37)
 Negative142 (48.63)
Tumor size
 >4 cm144 (49.32)
 ≤4 cm148 (50.68)
Total number292 (100)43 (100)91 (100)

[i] CSCC, cervical squamous cell carcinoma; CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; FIGO, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

Collection of the specimens

Fasting blood (3 ml) specimens were obtained from 335 patients and 91 healthy females. The blood specimens were immediately transferred into the test tubes and then centrifuged at 1,000 × g for 10 min and the serum was extracted. The serum samples were stored at −80°C until detection.

A routine gynecological examination was performed on 292 females with CSCC and 43 females with CIN. The cervical secretions were washed using sterile physiological cotton balls and then cervical scrapings were collected from the squamous cell junction of the cervical canal using cotton swabs. Subsequently, they were placed in sterile glass tubes and stored at −20°C until use.

The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Jiangsu Cancer Hospital and written informed consent was obtained from all the participants in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Luminex xMAP technology

Serum levels of GRO-1, HGF, PDGF-AA and sE-selectin were quantified using Luminex xMAP technology. The Human Cytokine/Chemokine kit (cat no. MPXHCYTO60KPMX42) was used for the detection of GRO-1 and PDGF-AA, and Human Circulating Cancer Biomarker Magnetic Bead Panel 1 (cat no. HCCBP1MAG-58K) was used for the detection of HGF. Levels of sE-selectin were determined with Human Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Panel 1 (cat no. HCVD1-67AK). All the kits were supplied by Millipore (Billerica, MA, USA) while the FLEXMAP 3D™ system was purchased from Luminex Corporation (Austin, TX, USA).

The main experimental steps were as follows (in strict accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions): Firstly, standard and quality controls were prepared in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, then 25 μl serum and 25 μl beads (Millipore) were added to the plate, following being incubated for agitation overnight at 4°C. Subsequently, 25 μl of rabbit anti-rat monoclonal antibodies were added into each well followed by incubation for 1 h at 20–25°C. Streptavidin-phycoerythrin (25 μl) was added to the well and the plate followed by incubation for 30 min at 20–25°C. Following being washed twice, 100 μl of sheath fluid (Millipore) was added to every well. Finally, the median fluorescence intensity data was analyzed on the Luminex analyzer (FLEXMAP 3D™ system; Luminex Corporation) and the final concentrations of the four factors were calculated using the weighted 5-parameter logistic method.

DNA extraction and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)

The steps for DNA extraction of cervical scrapings were as follows: Firstly, the cervical scrapings were mixed with 1.5 ml sterile saline in a glass tube, then all the liquid was transferred into a 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tube to be centrifuged at 12,000 × g for 10 min. The supernatant was removed and the precipitate was digested using proteinase K (Omega Bio-Tek Inc., Norcross, GA, USA). Finally, DNA was extracted using chloroform. A Real quality RQ-HPV HR kit (AB ANALITICA, Padova, Italy) was used to identify and quantify the HPV DNA type (16, 18/45, 31 and 33/52/58/67) on the ABI 7300 Real-Time PCR system (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) and β-globin served as the internal control. qPCR was conducted in a 20 μl volume containing 10 μl AB Real Time mix (AB ANALITICA), 0.4 μl primer mix, 0.8 μl probe mix, 6.8 μl H2O and 2 μl DNA. The PCR program comprised 40 cycles of 2 min at 50°C, 3 min at 95°C, 15 sec at 94°C and 40 sec at 57°C. When the quantitative value of HPV was ≥100 gene copies, the result was positive for this type of HPV, otherwise the result was negative. All the experiments were repeated three times.

Statistical analysis

The concentrations of GRO-1, HGF, PDGF-AA and sE-selectin were not normally distributed, thus the Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test were used in the present study, while the χ2 test was used to compare the positive rate of HPV between the groups. The correlations between the biomarkers were analyzed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC) were used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy. Youden’s index [Youden’s index = sensitivity + specificity) −1] is an indicator of authenticity of diagnostic tests and the optimal cut-off values were calculated when the Youden index was maximum. Overall survival time (OS) was calculated from the day of diagnosis to mortality due to cervical cancer or the latest follow-up, while progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from the day of diagnosis to the initial disease progression or mortality from cervical cancer or the latest follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier survival curves and the log-rank test were used to compare the differences between groups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to screen out the independent prognostic variables. The median (25–75 percentiles) was used to describe the measurement data and P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference. All the above statistical analyses was performed using SPSS version 21.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Concentrations of GRO-1, HGF, PDGF-AA and sE-selectin in CSCC patients, CIN patients and the healthy controls

The serum levels of GRO-1, HGF and sE-selectin in patients with CSCC significantly increased compared with the CIN patients and the healthy controls [GRO-1: 748.43 (501.49–1088.23 pg/ml) vs. 620.07 (386.60–846.58 pg/ml) and 564.91 (376.34–899.03 pg/ml), P<0.0001; HGF: 724.35 (501.68–1049.35 pg/ml) vs. 555.68 (409.21–711.13 pg/ml) and 476.27 (356.36–834.40 pg/ml), P<0.0001; sE-selectin: 22176.68 (13767.43–34829.97 pg/ml) vs. 17214.00 (10854.60–25306.98 pg/ml) and 18276.34 (9028.38–26154.20 pg/ml), P<0.0001] and no significant difference was identified between the CIN patients and the healthy controls (P>0.05). No statistical difference was identified in the serum levels of PDGF-AA among the three groups [13311.48 (8952.06–19040.87 pg/ml) vs. 12220.30 (7623.88–18438.83 pg/ml) and 11224.32 (8756.27–17643.22 pg/ml), P=0.21] (Fig. 1).

Positive rate of HPV types between the CSCC patients and the CIN patients

HPV infection was identified in 205 out of 292 (70.21%) of the CSCC patients as well as 22 out of 43 (51.16%) of the CIN patients. A significant difference was found between the two groups (χ2=6.22, P=0.013). Table II shows the distribution of the HPV types in the HPV-positive patients. It was revealed that HPV 16 was the most common genotype in the CSCC patients (50.24%) and the CIN patients (45.45%) infected with HPV 16 only. In addition, HPV 16 was the most common genotype in the CSCC patients (66.34%) and the CIN patients (59.09%) in the overall prevalence (Table II).

Table II

Prevalence of HPV types in the HPV-positive patients.

Table II

Prevalence of HPV types in the HPV-positive patients.

HPV typeCSCC patients n (%)CIN patients n (%)
16103 (50.24)10 (45.45)
18/4517 (8.29)5 (22.73)
3111 (5.37)0 (0.00)
33/52/58/6735 (17.07)4 (18.18)
16, 18/454 (1.95)0 (0.00)
16, 314 (1.95)0 (0.00)
16, 33/52/58/6725 (12.20)3 (13.64)
18/45, 33/52/58/674 (1.95)0 (0.00)
31, 33/52/58/672 (0.98)0 (0.00)
Total infection number205 (100)22 (100)

[i] CSCC, cervical squamous cell carcinoma; CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; HPV, human papillomavirus.

Association between HPV infection and clinicopathological characteristics in CSCC patients

As demonstrated in Table III, HPV infection was not associated with age, FIGO stage, metastasis, grading, pelvic lymph node metastasis or tumor size of the CSCC patients (P>0.05).

Table III

Association between HPV and clinicopathological characteristics in 292 cervical squamous cell carcinoma patients.

Table III

Association between HPV and clinicopathological characteristics in 292 cervical squamous cell carcinoma patients.

CharacteristicPatients (n)HPV positive n (%)HPV negative n (%)χ2P-value
Age (years)
 ≤45175121 (69.14)54 (30.86)0.2360.627
 >4511784 (71.79)33 (28.21)
FIGO stage
 I+II14899 (66.89)49 (33.11)1.5750.209
 III+IV144106 (73.61)38 (26.39)
Metastasis
 Positive2920 (68.97)9 (31.03)0.0240.878
 Negative263185 (70.34)78 (29.66)
Grading
 14329 (67.44)14 (32.56)0.2490.883
 2147103 (70.07)44 (29.93)
 310273 (71.57)29 (28.43)
Pelvic lymph node
 Positive150105 (70.00)45 (30.00)0.0060.937
 Negative142100 (70.42)42 (29.58)
Tumor size
 >4 cm14499 (68.75)45 (31.25)0.2880.592
 ≤4 cm148106 (71.62)42 (28.38)

[i] HPV, human papillomavirus.

Association between serum levels of GRO-1, HGF, PDGF-AA and sE-selectin with clinicopathological variables and HPV infection in CSCC patients

The serum levels of GRO-1 were closely associated with FIGO stage (P=0.001), metastasis (P<0.0001), pathological grading (P<0.0001) and pelvic lymph node metastasis (P=0.003). The serum levels of HGF were significantly correlated with FIGO stage (P=0.02), pathological grading (P<0.0001), pelvic lymph node metastasis (P<0.0001), tumor size (P<0.0001) and HPV infection (P=0.039). The concentrations of PDGF-AA in the serum were associated with FIGO stage (P=0.004), pathological grading (P=0.021) and pelvic lymph node metastasis (P<0.0001), and the concentrations of sE-selectin were correlated with age (P<0.0001), FIGO stage (P<0.0001) and tumor size (P=0.001) (Table IV).

Table IV

Association between the concentrations of GRO-1, HGF, PDGF-AA and sE-selectin with clinicopathological variables and HPV infection in CSCC patients.

Table IV

Association between the concentrations of GRO-1, HGF, PDGF-AA and sE-selectin with clinicopathological variables and HPV infection in CSCC patients.

GRO-1 (pg/ml)HGF (pg/ml)PDGF-AA (pg/ml)sE-selectin (pg/ml)




VariableMedian (Q1–Q3)P-valueMedian (Q1–Q3)P-valueMedian (Q1–Q3)P-valueMedian (Q1–Q3)P-value
Age (years)
 ≤45706.150.405703.610.673122320.50725100.07<0.0001
(498.34–1064.77) (491.28–1050.43) (8924.25–18981.15) (16334.44–39911.36)
 >45797.84730.0414546.6417570.96
(511.44–1101.05) (533.35–1055.83) (8975.73–20086.15) (10854.60–26670.43)
FIGO stage
 I+II681.680.001684.940.0211836.830.00418567.66<0.0001
(487.51–997.52) (463.36–906.66) (7667.91–17829.22) (12063.41–27413.10)
 III+IV854.89745.2915079.2525514.91
(512.11–1377.29) (541.90–1106.87) (9654.05–21567.82) (16552.68–41161.57)
Metastasis
 Negative725.37<0.0001718.670.5313666.550.47321492.660.051
(498.34–1032.68) (497.93–1046.13) (9071.68–19012.58) (13322.53–33429.15)
 Positive1454.65745.2910304.7229365.53
(673.72–1813.78) (514.75–1187.60) (7024.07–23145.85) (17768.34–42434.70)
Grading
 1684.23<0.0001548.78<0.000112730.830.02119027.790.815
(486.09–1015.88) (386.06–671.97) (7640.13–16155.14) (14464.74–29145.96)
 2680.07651.7612621.9921882.43
(471.20–1021.78) (474.78–883.24) (8755.05–18273.21) (13322.53–36253.62)
 3932.37954.1315745.9223168.46
(639.76–1280.61) (743.85–1163.76) (9749.88–22532.62) (14012.20–35245.75)
Pelvic lymph node
 Positive854.060.003867.08<0.000116083.24<0.000122472.310.528
(539.70–1177.40) (556.12–1149.30) (9376.87–21631.17) (14012.20–37642.05)
 Negative673.11609.3111382.9321492.66
(455.37–1020.08) (424.11–801.47) (7905.86–15881.62) (13483.41–32109.79)
Tumor size
 >4 cm797.410.115881.21<0.000113486.610.7925100.070.001
(507.29–1202.84) (574.39–1208.60) (8770.29–20453.72) (15987.78–39849.31)
 ≤4 cm703.19646.2913104.1919585.97
(496.78–1029.21) (427.27–829.08) (9086.33–18808.46) (12373.51–29530.70)
HPV type
 Positive756.010.454739.560.03913407.860.88322472.310.595
(491.82–1060.47) (523.15–1080.69) (9046.62–18981.15) (14382.01–35777.81)
 Negative737.38649.9412999.1821882.43
(557.53–1203.25) (464.98–907.68) (8816.01–21652.84) (12529.74–33429.15)

[i] CSCC, cervical squamous cell carcinoma; GRO-1, growth-regulated oncogene-1; HGF, hepatocyte growth factor; PDGF-AA, platelet-derived growth factor-AA; sE-selectin, soluble E-selectin.

Correlations between GRO-1, HGF, PDGF-AA and sE-selectin in patients with CSCC

Fig. 2 shows that there were several positive correlations of the serum levels of HGF with the other three factors: Serum levels of HGF correlated with GRO-1 (R=0.194, P=0.001), PDGF-AA (R=0.202, P=0.0005) and sE-selectin (R=0.214, P=0.0002). The concentration of PDGF-AA was correlated with GRO-1 (R=0.361, P<0.0001), while no association of sE-selectin with GRO-1 (R=0.001, P=0.991) and PDGF-AA (R=−0.002, P=0.971) was identified.

Diagnostic value of serum levels of GRO-1, HGF, PDGF-AA and sE-selectin in the CSCC patients

AUROC of GRO-1, HGF, PDGF-AA and sE-selectin for discriminating the CSCC patients from the CIN patients were 0.615 (95% CI: 0.525–0.705), 0.662 (95% CI: 0.583–0.741), 0.537 (95% CI: 0.442–0.631) and 0.634 (95% CI: 0.551–0.718), respectively, while the AUROC of HGF for discriminating the CSCC patients from the healthy controls was 0.655 (95% CI: 0.586–0.723) compared with 0.633 (95% CI: 0.566–0.700) for GRO-1, 0.559 (95% CI: 0.497–0.622) for PDGF-AA and 0.618 (95% CI: 0.552–0.684) for sE-selectin. In addition, the AUROC of GRO-1, HGF, PDGF-AA and sE-selectin for discriminating the CSCC patients from the CIN patients and the healthy controls were 0.627 (95% CI: 0.570–0.684), 0.657 (95% CI: 0.600–0.714), 0.552 (95% CI: 0.495–0.609) and 0.624 (95% CI: 0.567–0.680), respectively (Fig. 3). The results demonstrated that serum levels of HGF obtained the highest diagnostic value compared with the other three factors. Table V shows the sensitivity and specificity of the optimal cut-off values.

Table V

Sensitivity and specificity of the optimal cut-off values in different screening groups.

Table V

Sensitivity and specificity of the optimal cut-off values in different screening groups.

GroupGRO-1HGFPDGF-AAsE-selectin
CSCC vs CIN
 Cut-off point (pg/ml)902.27717.728287.7322176.68
 Sensitivity (%)39.0450.6878.7750.00
 Specificity (%)81.4079.0732.5674.42
CSCC vs healthy controls
 Cut-off point (pg/ml)466.89494.0019898.3327399.83
 Sensitivity (%)80.4876.7122.9536.64
 Specificity (%)42.8658.2494.5185.71
CSCC vs CIN and healthy controls
 Cut-off point (pg/ml)407.58494.0019898.3327399.83
 Sensitivity (%)88.0176.7122.9536.64
 Specificity (%)32.8454.4891.0484.33

[i] GRO-1, growth-regulated oncogene-1; HGF, hepatocyte growth factor; PDGF-AA, platelet-derived growth factor-AA; sE-selectin, soluble E-selectin; CSCC, cervical squamous cell carcinoma; CIN, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

Prognostic value of GRO-1, HGF, PDGF-AA, sE-selectin and HPV in CSCC patients

The median values of GRO-1, HGF, PDGF-AA and sE-selectin were used as the cut-off points. The log-rank analysis demonstrated that patients with a low expression of GRO-1 (<748.43 pg/ml) had significantly longer OS and PFS than those with a high expression of GRO-1 (>748.43 pg/ml; OS, P=0.049; PFS, P=0.048), and that patients with a high expression of HGF (>724.35 pg/ml) had significantly shorter OS and PFS than those with a low expression of HGF (<724.35 pg/ml; OS, P<0.0001; PFS, P<0.0001). The analysis also indicated significant differences in OS and PFS between patients with a high (>22176.68 pg/ml) and low expression (<22176.68 pg/ml) of sE-selectin (OS, P=0.048; PFS, P=0.028). However, no differences in OS and PFS between patients with a high (>13311.48 pg/ml) and low expression (<13311.48 pg/ml) of PDGF-AA (OS, P=0.209; PFS, P=0.207) were identified (Fig. 4). Furthermore, HPV-positive patients had shorter OS and PFS compared with the HPV-negative patients (OS, P=0.027; PFS, P=0.023) (Fig. 5). Table VI indicated that only the expression of HGF in the serum (P<0.0001), FIGO stage (P<0.0001) and pelvic lymph node metastasis (P=0.001) were independent prognostic factors in CSCC patients, while high-risk HPV infection did not show any statistical significance in the multivariate Cox analysis.

Table VI

Multivariate Cox regression in cervical squamous cell carcinoma patients.

Table VI

Multivariate Cox regression in cervical squamous cell carcinoma patients.

OSPFS


Risk factorP-valueHR95% CIP-valueHR95% CI
Age: >45 vs ≤45 years0.2771.2350.844–1.8080.2371.2580.860–1.840
FIGO stage: III+IV vs I+II<0.00012.6161.727–3.961<0.00012.5401.683–3.835
Metastasis: Positive vs negative0.9110.9670.534–1.7520.9850.9940.548–1.804
Grading: 3 vs 1+20.3160.8160.549–1.2140.2930.8080.544–1.202
Pelvic nodal status: Positive vs negative0.0011.9501.320–2.8810.0011.9821.342–2.927
Tumor size: >4 cm vs ≤4 cm0.6760.9230.633–1.3450.6680.9210.631–1.343
GRO-1 (pg/ml): High vs low levels0.5541.1170.774–1.6140.6271.0950.759–1.579
HGF (pg/ml): High vs low levels<0.00015.6403.596–8.846<0.00015.2793.368–8.276
PDGF-AA (pg/ml): High vs low levels0.1870.7760.533–1.1300.2060.7850.540–1.142
sE-selectin (pg/ml): High vs low levels0.6950.9290.643–1.3420.9770.9950.690–1.433
HPV: Positive vs negative0.3011.2510.819–1.9100.2601.2760.835–1.948

[i] PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival time; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; GRO-1, growth-regulated oncogene-1; HGF, hepatocyte growth factor; PDGF-AA, platelet-derived growth factor-AA; sE-selectin, soluble E-selectin.

Discussion

GRO-1, also termed CXCL1, has been extensively investigated in cancer in recent years (1114). It is highly expressed in numerous types of carcinomas, including oropharyngeal cancer (19), colorectal cancer (13) and gastric cancer (14). Ogata et al (13) demonstrated that the expression of GRO-1 is associated with tumor size, staging, lymph node metastasis and invasion depth in colorectal cancer using immunohistochemistry. Jung et al (14) detected the serum levels of GRO-1 in gastric cancer and found that its high expression was correlated with tumor stage and lymph node metastasis. However, studies investigating this factor in CSCC are extremely rare. In the present study, the serum levels of GRO-1 in CSCC patients were significantly higher than patients with CIN and the healthy controls. In addition, the serum levels were associated with FIGO stage, metastasis, pathological grading and pelvic lymph node metastasis. In addition, the concentration of GRO-1 in patients whose tumor size was >4 cm was higher than those in patients whose tumor size was ≤4 cm, however, no difference was observed between them, and this may be due to the small sample size. The present study also could not verify the association between age and GRO-1. This result is consistent with several previous studies (13,14). Overall, detecting the serum levels of GRO-1 in CSCC patients may be useful for predicting the state of tumor load and the progression of the disease.

Several studies have indicated that the expression of HGF mainly secreted by stromal cells is elevated in various types of carcinoma (20,21), including cervical cancer (22). Certain studies have demonstrated that overexpression of HGF is associated with the progression and metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma (20). Another study emphasized the important role of HGF and c-MET in the progression and invasion of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (23). Nakamura et al (24) reported that HGF antagonists or inhibitors of c-MET were able to inhibit tumor growth and metastasis. The results from the present study demonstrated that serum levels of HGF in CSCC patients were significantly increased compared with the CIN patients and healthy controls, and that the serum levels were correlated with FIGO stage, pathological grade, pelvic lymph node metastasis and tumor size. These findings suggest that the expression of HGF is associated with infiltration and tumor metastasis. Therefore, inhibiting the HGF/c-MET signaling pathway may be a potential therapeutic treatment for CSCC. In the present study, it was also observed that the serum levels of HGF in patients with metastasis were higher than those without metastasis, however, no statistical significance was observed between them. In addition, no correlation between HGF and age was found. Aune et al (25) demonstrated that preoperative serum HGF level is not associated with age, which is consistent with the results from the present study.

Several studies have demonstrated that the upregulation of PDGF in numerous carcinomas is able to promote lymph node metastasis and tumor cell proliferation (26,27). Importantly, it can promote the formation of tumor blood vessels and lymph vessels (28,29). Therefore, PDGF may stimulate the growth and metastasis of tumors by angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis. It is well established that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is important in neoplasm angiogenesis. As a member of the PDGF family, PDGF-AA is an important autocrine regulator, which can regulate the expression of VEGF, thus PDGF-AA may be a more potent therapeutic target for inhibiting angiogenesis in tumors than VEGF (30). In the present study, it was observed that the concentrations of PDGF-AA in the serum of CSCC patients were correlated with FIGO stage, pathological grading and lymph node metastasis, and these results were in accordance with the above-mentioned studies. However, the results from the present study demonstrated that the serum levels of PDGF-AA were not associated with metastasis or tumor size and no association of PDGF-AA between the CSCC patients and the other two groups was found. The reasons for these results are diverse. Although PDGF-AA is a potent angiogenic factor, tumor angiogenesis is a multistep process including numerous growth factors and cytokines and every step may lead to different outcomes. The present study also verified that serum levels of PDGF-AA were not associated with age, which is consistent with a former study (26).

Previous studies have demonstrated that sE-selectin is highly expressed in colorectal cancer and is closely associated with the progression, recurrence and metastasis of cancer (31,32). It was observed that the serum levels of sE-selectin were significantly increased in CSCC patients and were correlated with FIGO stage and tumor size. These findings suggested that the levels of sE-selectin can predict tumor invasion and progression. No association was found between sE-selectin and metastasis and certain studies also failed to demonstrate an association between sE-selectin and lymph node metastasis (33). Other studies indicated that sE-selectin is not able to predict the metastasis of colorectal cancer (34). Therefore, this requires further investigation. It was also observed that the levels of sE-selectin were significantly associated with age, which is in accordance with a previous study (35). This may owe to a more active metabolic activity in young patients. No significant correlation was identified between sE-selectin and grading.

In the analysis of high-risk HPV infection in CSCC patients, a higher rate of infection was found in the CSCC patients compared with the CIN patients illustrating that HPV infection is closely associated with the occurrence of cervical cancer (3,4). However, no significance was found between HPV infection and clinicopathological variables, which is consistent with the study by Bachtiary et al (36). The association between HPV and the four biomarkers was also analyzed and only the serum levels of HGF in HPV-positive patients were higher than HPV-negative patients. Walker et al (37) clarified that the overexpression of HGF is closely associated with cervical HPV infection.

The association between serum levels of GRO-1, HGF, PDGF-AA and sE-selectin in patients with CSCC was investigated in the present study, and it was revealed that HGF was associated with the other three factors, and PDGF-AA was associated with GRO-1. Certain studies have demonstrated that HGF can enhance the generation of GRO-1 and VEGF in vitro (38) and another study indicated that serum levels of HGF in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma can regulate the expression of PDGF-A (39). There were correlations between two of either GRO-1, HGF and PDGF-AA in the present study, which suggests that they have a common role in angiogenesis (11,17,40), while no association was found between sE-selectin and GRO-1 and PDGF-AA. Studies investigating this issue are rare and thus further investigation is required.

The diagnostic value of the four biomarkers in CSCC patients was also analyzed. HGF obtained the highest diagnostic value although the diagnostic value of all four factors was not significantly high. Hashem et al (41) reported the diagnostic value of HGF in prostate cancer, thus the detection of HGF in the serum of cervical cancer may provide aided diagnostic value.

Finally, the prognostic value of GRO-1, HGF, PDGF-AA, sE-selectin and HPV was examined in patients with CSCC. The results indicated that patients with a low expression of GRO-1, HGF and sE-selectin had significantly longer OS and PFS than those with high expression of the three factors. Furthermore, the HPV-positive patients had shorter OS and PFS compared with the HPV-negative patients, but only the levels of HGF, FIGO stage and pelvic lymph node metastasis were independent prognostic factors in the multivariate Cox analysis. Cheng et al (42) reported that GRO-1 may be a promising adverse prognostic molecular marker, and Miyake et al (43) confirmed the poor prognostic value of GRO-1 in bladder cancer. Numerous studies have demonstrated the prognostic value of sE-selectin in colorectal cancer (31,34). Our findings suggested that GRO-1 and sE-selectin may have an impact on the prognosis of CSCC patients by affecting FIGO stage or lymph node metastasis, thus GRO-1 and sE-selectin were not independent prognostic risk factors. Madsen et al (44) failed to verify the prognostic value of PDGF-AA in ovarian cancer. However, another study indicated the adverse prognosis of PDGF-AA in pancreatic cancer (26), thus the prognostic value of PDGF-AA in CSCC requires further investigation. However, the prognostic value of HPV remains controversial (610). Studies have reported the prognostic value of HGF in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and verified that the high expression of HGF was closely associated with a poor prognosis (45). Aune et al (25) demonstrated its adverse prognostic significance in ovarian cancer. In cervical cancer, the prognostic value of the HGF receptor was clarified by Baykal et al (46), therefore, in addition to these traditional prognostic indicators, including FIGO stage and pelvic lymph node metastasis, the pre-treatment serum levels of HGF may be a predictor of tumor progression in certain early stage cervical carcinomas.

In conclusion, HGF may be a potential prognostic tumor marker rather than high-risk HPV types in patients with CSCC, therefore, detecting the serum levels of HGF may be useful for predicting the prognosis of CSCC patients.

References

1 

Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, et al: Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 127:2893–2917. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

2 

Wang SS, Sherman ME, Hildesheim A, Lacey JV Jr and Devesa S: Cervical adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma incidence trends among white women and black women in the United States for 1976–2000. Cancer. 100:1035–1044. 2004.PubMed/NCBI

3 

Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al: Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol. 189:12–19. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

4 

Castellsagué X: Natural history and epidemiology of HPV infection and cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 110:S4–S7. 2008.

5 

Bao YP, Li N, Smith JS and Qiao YL; ACCPAB members. Human papillomavirus type distribution in women from Asia: a meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 18:71–79. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

6 

Schwartz SM, Daling JR, Shera KA, et al: Human papillomavirus and prognosis of invasive cervical cancer: a population-based study. J Clin Oncol. 19:1906–1915. 2001.PubMed/NCBI

7 

Kang WD, Kim CH, Cho MK, et al: HPV-18 is a poor prognostic factor, unlike the HPV viral load, in patients with stage IB-IIA cervical cancer undergoing radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol. 121:546–550. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar

8 

Riou G, Favre M, Jeannel D, Bourhis J, Le Doussal V and Orth G: Association between poor prognosis in early-stage invasive cervical carcinomas and non-detection of HPV DNA. Lancet. 335:1171–1174. 1990. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

9 

Higgins GD1, Davy M, Roder D, et al: Increased age and mortality associated with cervical carcinomas negative for human papillomavirus RNA. Lancet. 338:910–913. 1991. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

10 

Barreto CL, Martins DB, de Lima Filho JL and Magalhães V: Detection of human Papillomavirus in biopsies of patients with cervical cancer, and its association with prognosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 288:643–648. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

11 

Belperio JA, Keane MP, Arenberg DA, et al: CXC chemokines in angiogenesis. J Leukocyte Biol. 68:1–8. 2000.

12 

Anisowicz A, Bardwell L and Sager R: Constitutive overexpression of a growth-regulated gene in transformed Chinese hamster and human cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 84:7188–7192. 1987. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

13 

Ogata H, Sekikawa A, Yamagishi H, et al: GROα promotes invasion of colorectal cancer cells. Oncol Rep. 24:1479–1486. 2010.

14 

Jung JJ, Noh S, Jeung HC, et al: Chemokine growth-regulated oncogene 1 as a putative biomarker for gastric cancer progression. Cancer Sci. 101:2200–2206. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

15 

Nakamura T, Nawa K and Ichihara A: Partial purification and characterization of hepatocyte growth factor from serum of hepatectomized rats. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 122:1450–1459. 1984. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

16 

Cecchi F, Rabe DC and Bottaro DP: Targeting the HGF/Met signalling pathway in cancer. Eur J Cancer. 46:1260–1270. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

17 

Ferrara N and Kerbel RS: Angiogenesis as a therapeutic target. Nature. 438:967–974. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

18 

Gogali A, Charalabopoulos K, Zampira I, et al: Soluble adhesion molecules E-cadherin, intercellular adhesion molecule-1, and E-selectin as lung cancer biomarkers. Chest. 138:1173–1179. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

19 

Allen C, Duffy S, Teknos T, et al: Nuclear factor-κB-related serum factors as longitudinal biomarkers of response and survival in advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 13:3182–3190. 2007.

20 

Ogunwobi OO, Puszyk W, Dong HJ and Liu C: Epigenetic upregulation of HGF and c-Met drives metastasis in hepatocellular carcinoma. PloS One. 8:e637652013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

21 

Tyan SW, Kuo WH, Huang CK, et al: Breast cancer cells induce cancer-associated fibroblasts to secrete hepatocyte growth factor to enhance breast tumorigenesis. PLoS One. 6:e153132011. View Article : Google Scholar

22 

Horn LC, Hommel N, Roschlau U, Bilek K, Hentschel B and Einenkel J: Peritumoral stromal remodeling, pattern of invasion and expression of c-met/HGF in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix uteri, FIGO stages III and IV. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 163:76–80. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

23 

Grugan KD, Miller CG, Yao Y, et al: Fibroblast-secreted hepatocyte growth factor plays a functional role in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma invasion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 107:11026–11031. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

24 

Nakamura T, Sakai K, Nakamura T and Matsumoto K: Anti-cancer approach with NK4: bivalent action and mechanisms. Anticancer Agents Med Chem. 10:36–46. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

25 

Aune G, Lian AM, Tingulstad S, et al: Increased circulating hepatocyte growth factor (HGF): a marker of epithelial ovarian cancer and an indicator of poor prognosis. Gynecol Oncol. 121:402–406. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

26 

Rahbari NN, Schmidt T, Falk CS, et al: Expression and prognostic value of circulating angiogenic cytokines in pancreatic cancer. BMC cancer. 11:2862011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

27 

Willenberg A, Saalbach A, Simon JC and Anderegg U: Melanoma cells control HA synthesis in peritumoral fibroblasts via PDGF-AA and PDGF-CC: impact on melanoma cell proliferation. J Invest Dermatol. 132:385–393. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

28 

Suzuki S, Dobashi Y, Hatakeyama Y, et al: Clinicopathological significance of platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF)-B and vascular endothelial growth factor-A expression, PDGF receptor-β phosphorylation, and microvessel density in gastric cancer. BMC cancer. 10:6592010.PubMed/NCBI

29 

Donnem T, Al-Saad S, Al-Shibli K, Busund LT and Bremnes RM: Co-expression of PDGF-B and VEGFR-3 strongly correlates with lymph node metastasis and poor survival in non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 21:223–231. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

30 

Shikada Y, Yonemitsu Y, Koga T, et al: Platelet-derived growth factor-AA is an essential and autocrine regulator of vascular endothelial growth factor expression in non-small cell lung carcinomas. Cancer Res. 65:7241–7248. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar

31 

Ferroni P, Roselli M, Spila A, et al: Serum sE-selectin levels and carcinoembryonic antigen mRNA-expressing cells in peripheral blood as prognostic factors in colorectal cancer patients. Cancer. 116:2913–2921. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar

32 

Dymicka-Piekarska V and Kemona H: Does colorectal cancer clinical advancement affect adhesion molecules (sP-selectin, sE-selectin and ICAM-1) concentration? Thromb Res. 124:80–83. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar

33 

Mantur M, Snarska J, Koper O, et al: Serum sICAM, sVCAM and sE-selectin levels in colorectal cancer patients. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 47:621–625. 2009.PubMed/NCBI

34 

Uner A, Akcali Z and Unsal D: Serum levels of soluble E-selectin in colorectal cancer. Neoplasma. 51:269–274. 2004.PubMed/NCBI

35 

Nash MC, Wade AM, Shah V and Dillon MJ: Normal levels of soluble E-selectin, soluble intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (sICAM-1), and soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (sVCAM-1) decrease with age. Clin Exp Immunol. 103:167–170. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar

36 

Bachtiary B, Obermair A, Dreier B, et al: Impact of multiple HPV infection on response to treatment and survival in patients receiving radical radiotherapy for cervical cancer. Int J Cancer. 102:237–243. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

37 

Walker F, Kermorgant S, Daraï E, et al: Hepatocyte growth factor and c-Met in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia overexpression of proteins associated with oncogenic human papillomavirus and human immunodeficiency virus. Clin Cancer Res. 9:273–284. 2003.

38 

Dong G, Lee TL, Yeh NT, et al: Metastatic squamous cell carcinoma cells that overexpress c-Met exhibit enhanced angiogenesis factor expression, scattering and metastasis in response to hepatocyte growth factor. Oncogene. 23:6199–6208. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar

39 

Worden B, Yang XP, Lee TL, et al: Hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor differentially regulates expression of proangiogenic factors through Egr-1 in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Res. 65:7071–7080. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar

40 

Carmeliet P and Jain RK: Angiogenesis in cancer and other diseases. Nature. 407:249–257. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

41 

Hashem M and Essam T: Hepatocyte growth factor as a tumor marker in the serum of patients with prostate cancer. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst. 17:114–120. 2005.PubMed/NCBI

42 

Cheng WL, Wang CS, Huang YH, et al: Overexpression of CXCL1 and its receptor CXCR2 promote tumor invasion in gastric cancer. Ann Oncol. 22:2267–2276. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

43 

Miyake M, Lawton A, Goodison S, et al: Chemokine (CXC) ligand 1 (CXCL1) protein expression is increased in aggressive bladder cancers. BMC cancer. 13:3222013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

44 

Madsen CV, Steffensen KD, Olsen DA, et al: Serial measurements of serum PDGF-AA, PDGF-BB, FGF2, and VEGF in multiresistant ovarian cancer patients treated with bevacizumab. J Ovarian Res. 5:232012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

45 

Rischin D, Fisher R, Oliner K, et al: Prognostic significance of interleukin-8 (IL-8) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) treated with chemoradiation on a phase III trial. J Clin Oncol (Meeting Abstracts). 28:55092010.

46 

Baykal C and Ayhan A, Al A, Yüce K and Ayhan A: Overexpression of the c-Met/HGF receptor and its prognostic significance in uterine cervix carcinomas. Gynecol Oncol. 88:123–129. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI

Related Articles

Journal Cover

August-2014
Volume 10 Issue 2

Print ISSN: 1791-2997
Online ISSN:1791-3004

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Zhang Y, Wu JZ, Yang YQ, Ma R, Zhang JY and Feng JF: Expression of growth‑regulated oncogene‑1, hepatocyte growth factor, platelet‑derived growth factor‑AA and soluble E‑selectin and their association with high‑risk human papillomavirus infection in squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Mol Med Rep 10: 1013-1024, 2014
APA
Zhang, Y., Wu, J., Yang, Y., Ma, R., Zhang, J., & Feng, J. (2014). Expression of growth‑regulated oncogene‑1, hepatocyte growth factor, platelet‑derived growth factor‑AA and soluble E‑selectin and their association with high‑risk human papillomavirus infection in squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Molecular Medicine Reports, 10, 1013-1024. https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2014.2293
MLA
Zhang, Y., Wu, J., Yang, Y., Ma, R., Zhang, J., Feng, J."Expression of growth‑regulated oncogene‑1, hepatocyte growth factor, platelet‑derived growth factor‑AA and soluble E‑selectin and their association with high‑risk human papillomavirus infection in squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix". Molecular Medicine Reports 10.2 (2014): 1013-1024.
Chicago
Zhang, Y., Wu, J., Yang, Y., Ma, R., Zhang, J., Feng, J."Expression of growth‑regulated oncogene‑1, hepatocyte growth factor, platelet‑derived growth factor‑AA and soluble E‑selectin and their association with high‑risk human papillomavirus infection in squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix". Molecular Medicine Reports 10, no. 2 (2014): 1013-1024. https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2014.2293