Cargando…
SMARCC1 expression is positively correlated with pathological grade and good prognosis in renal cell carcinoma
BACKGROUND: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which is derived from the renal tubular epithelium, is now the most common urological cancer. Of the four RCC subtypes, clear cell RCC (ccRCC) is the most common subtype and accounts for 75–80% of all RCC cases. SMARCC1, also known as BAF155, together with SMA...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
AME Publishing Company
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7844531/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33532313 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-935 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which is derived from the renal tubular epithelium, is now the most common urological cancer. Of the four RCC subtypes, clear cell RCC (ccRCC) is the most common subtype and accounts for 75–80% of all RCC cases. SMARCC1, also known as BAF155, together with SMARCA4, SMARCA2, and SMARCB1, comprises the SWI/SNF protein family. It has been reported that the expression of SMARCC1 was correlated with some human cancers including prostate cancer, colon cancer, and pancreatic cancer. However, the mechanisms and regulatory roles of SMARCC1 in ccRCC are not well defined. METHODS: Our current study primarily investigated the expression of SMARCC1 and its clinical importance in two common histological types of ccRCC using microarrays (HKidE180Su02, MecDNA-HKidE030CS01). RESULTS: The results showed that the expression of SMARCC1 in ccRCC tissues was significantly decreased compared with that in corresponding para-tumor tissue (4.370±2.036 vs. 6.167±1.162, P=0.001). SMARCC1 expression was positively correlated with pathological grade (r=0.224, P=0.011). Moreover, ccRCC patients with high SMARCC1 expression had a better prognosis than those with low SMARCC1 expression (40.0% vs. 95.2%, P=0.000) in the following sub-groups: pathological grade (III and IV), male sex (73.5% vs. 95.3%, P=0.004), and tumor size >5 cm (62.5% vs. 89.5%, P=0.044). CONCLUSIONS: A further study is necessary to explain the mechanism of the occurrence and progression of ccRCC. |
---|