Evaluation of clinical value and potential mechanism of MTFR2 in lung adenocarcinoma via bioinformatics

Background Mitochondrial fission regulator 2 (MTFR2) was involved in the progression and development of various cancers. However, the relationship between MTFR2 with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) had not been reported. Herein, this study analyzed the clinical significance and potential mechanisms of MTFR2 in LUAD via bioinformatics tools. Results We found that the level of MTFR2 was increased, and correlated with sex, age, smoking history, neoplasm staging, histological subtype and TP53 mutation status in LUAD patients. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed LUAD patients with increased MTFR2 had a poor prognosis. In addition, univariate COX regression analysis showed neoplasm staging, T stage, distant metastasis and MTFR2 level were risk factors for the prognosis of LUAD. A total of 1127 genes were coexpressed with MTFR2, including 840 positive and 208 negative related genes. KEGG and GSEA found that MTFR2 participated in the progression of LUAD by affecting cell cycle, DNA replication, homologous recombination, p53 signaling pathway and other mechanisms. The top 10 coexpressed genes, namely CDK1, CDC20, CCNB1, PLK1, CCNA2, AURKB, CCNB2, BUB1B, MAD2L1 and BUB1 were highly expressed, and were associated with poor prognosis in LUAD. Conclusions Consequently, we elucidated MTFR2 was a biomarker for diagnosis and poor prognosis in LUAD, and might participate in the progression of LUAD via affecting cell cycle, DNA replication, homologous recombination and p53 signaling pathway.

Evaluation of Clinical Value and Potential Mechanism of MTFR2 in Lung Adenocarcinoma via Bioinformatics

Background: Mitochondrial fission regulator 2 (MTFR2) was involved in the progression and development of various cancers. However, the relationship between MTFR2 with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) had not been reported. Herein, this study analyzed the clinical significance and potential mechanisms of MTFR2 in LUAD via bioinformatics tools.Results: We found that the level of MTFR2 was increased, and correlated with sex, age, smoking history, neoplasm staging, histological subtype and TP53 mutation status in LUAD patients. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed LUAD patients with increased MTFR2 had a poor prognosis. In addition, univariate COX regression analysis showed neoplasm staging, T stage, distant metastasis and MTFR2 level were risk factors for the prognosis of LUAD. A total of 1127 genes were coexpressed with MTFR2, including 840 positive and 208 negative related genes. KEGG and GSEA found that MTFR2 participated in the progression of LUAD by affecting cell cycle, DNA replication, homologous recombination, p53 signaling pathway and other mechanisms. The top 10 coexpressed genes, namely CDK1, CDC20, CCNB1, PLK1, CCNA2, AURKB, CCNB2, BUB1B, MAD2L1 and BUB1 were highly expressed, and were associated with poor prognosis in LUAD. Conclusions: Consequently, we elucidated MTFR2 was a biomarker for diagnosis and poor prognosis in LUAD, and might participate in the progression of LUAD via affecting cell cycle, DNA replication, homologous recombination and p53 signaling pathway.

Evaluation of clinical value and potential mechanism of MTFR2 in lung adenocarcinoma via bioinformatics

Background Mitochondrial fission regulator 2 (MTFR2) was involved in the progression and development of various cancers. However, the relationship between MTFR2 with lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) had not been reported. Herein, this study analyzed the clinical significance and potential mechanisms of MTFR2 in LUAD via bioinformatic tools. Results We found that the level of MTFR2 was increased, and correlated with sex, age, smoking history, neoplasm staging, histological subtype and TP53 mutation status in LUAD patients. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed LUAD patients with increased MTFR2 had a poor prognosis. In addition, univariate COX regression analysis showed neoplasm staging, T stage, distant metastasis and MTFR2 level were risk factors for the prognosis of LUAD. A total of 1127 genes were coexpressed with MTFR2, including 840 positive and 208 negative related genes. KEGG and GSEA found that MTFR2 participated in the progression of LUAD by affecting cell cycle, DNA replication, homologous recombination, p53 signaling pathway and other mechanisms. The top 10 coexpressed genes, namely CDK1, CDC20, CCNB1, PLK1, CCNA2, AURKB, CCNB2, BUB1B, MAD2L1 and BUB1 were highly expressed, and were associated with poor prognosis in LUAD. Conclusions Consequently, we elucidated MTFR2 was a biomarker for diagnosis and poor prognosis in LUAD, and might participate in the progression of LUAD via affecting cell cycle, DNA replication, homologous recombination and p53 signaling pathway.

ESTUDO DO LINFONODO SENTINELA NO ESTADIAMENTO ANATOMOPATOLÓGICO DE TUMORES SÓLIDOS

Introdução: A presença de metástases linfonodais é um dos fatores mais importantes no prognóstico e na escolha do tratamento adjuvante em pacientes com tumores sólidos.A disseminação ocorre de modo ordenado e sequencial, sendo os Linfonodos Sentinelas (LNS), os primeiros da cadeia linfática a receber a drenagem de uma determinada região tumoral, permitindo, assim, predizer o estado de toda a cadeia.Objetivos: Estudar a pesquisa do LNS como método diagnóstico de metástase ganglionar insuspeita e determinar a validade do procedimento no estadiamento e prognóstico do câncer. Método: Trata-se de uma revisão sistemática sem metanálise seguindo a estrutura descrita por Egger e Smith. Realizou-se uma busca nos acervos SciELO, LILACS, PubMed e Biblioteca Cochrane, com os descritores “Sentinel Lymph Node”, “Neoplasm Staging” e “Prognosis”. Os critérios de inclusão estabelecidos foram estudos primários e secundários, publicados a partir de 2010, em inglês e que abordam o estudo dos LNS. Resultados: A amostra foi composta por 06 estudos primários e 03 secundários, sendo a maioria publicada em 2010, e 04 com tradução para o português. As evidências da validade da biópsia do linfonodo sentinela (SLNB) variam em vários estudos e tem uma curva de sucesso em função da aquisição das habilidades necessárias para realizá-lo: sensibilidade superior a 90% e 100% de especificidade, quando realizado com a técnica combinada de marcadores; cerca de 8% de falsos negativos valor preditivo negativo acima de 96%, taxa de recorrência após SLNB negativa de 0,45-1% em 2460 meses de seguimento3, ademais, supre a dificuldade de identificação dos linfonodos metastáticos pelos métodos de imagem no câncer gástrico precoce em pacientes não elegíveis para ressecção endoscópica5e ainda, substitui com excelente eficácia a dissecção axilar no câncer de mama reduzindo sobremaneira a morbidade inerente.CONCLUSÃO: Um estadiamento linfático preciso é importante, pois se mostrou que os pacientes com metástases evidentes nos LNS se beneficiarão de quimioterapia adjuvante, com a qual se busca melhorar a taxa de sobrevivência de 5 anos sem a doença, reduzir à recorrência e os óbitos. Notavelmente, a SLNB representa significativa vantagem como procedimento menos invasivo, de maior acurácia no estadiamento e nas informações prognósticas, associado a menor morbidade pós-operatória, que favorecem a ressecções atípicas e linfadenectomias limitadas.

Controversy regarding Diagnosis and Staging of Prostatic Carcinoma: The Role of Rectal Exploration and Imaging Methods

Although rectal examination (RE) represents the most utilized diagnostic tool, its reliability is limited by the large number of false positive results (low sensitivity) which” limit its use as a screening method. Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) is very useful in the diagnosis of prostatic neoplasms, as the hypoechoic lesions are very likely to be cancerous and should be biopsied. Nevertheless tumoral hypoechogenicity is not specific and at most only 1 of 3 hypoechoic areas in the peripheral and central zones will prove to be cancer. Of palpable stage B cancers in the peripheral and central zones, 21% are reported to be isoechoic. Moreover cancers that arise in the transitional zone cannot ever be detected as hypoechoic tumors because of the heterogenic echo texture of this zone filled with diffuse hypoechoic nodules of BPH. The integration between RE, TRUS and PSA improves diagnostic accuracy. As far as neoplasm staging is concerned the proper evaluation of the Gleason score and spatial distribution of the tumor are referred by some authors to be assured only by means of “systematic” biopsies of the two prostatic lobes, independently of the echographic support. RNM and CT do not assure a better diagnostic or staging reliability, while endorectal RM is considered to afford, in comparison with TRUS, a better visualization of periprostatic structures and therefore a more reliable evaluation of neoplastic extracapsular extension.