METHODS: Expression of SPRY genes in human and mice PDAC was analyzed using The Cancer Genome Atlas and Gene Expression Omnibus datasets, and by immunohistochemistry analysis. Gain-of-function, loss-of-function of Spry1 and orthotopic xenograft model were adopted to investigate the function of Spry1 in mice PDAC. Bioinformatics analysis, transwell and flowcytometry analysis were used to identify the effects of SPRY1 on immune cells. Co-immunoprecipitation and K-ras4B G12V overexpression were used to identify molecular mechanism.
RESULTS: SPRY1 expression was remarkably increased in PDAC tissues and positively associated with poor prognosis of PDAC patients. SPRY1 knockdown suppressed tumor growth in mice. SPRY1 was found to promote CXCL12 expression and facilitate neutrophil and macrophage infiltration via CXCL12-CXCR4 axis. Pharmacological inhibition of CXCL12-CXCR4 largely abrogated the oncogenic functions of SPRY1 by suppressing neutrophil and macrophage infiltration. Mechanistically, SPRY1 interacted with ubiquitin carboxy-terminal hydrolase L1 to induce activation of nuclear factor κB signaling and ultimately increase CXCL12 expression. Moreover, SPRY1 transcription was dependent on KRAS mutation and was mediated by MAPK-ERK signaling.
CONCLUSION: High expression of SPRY1 can function as an oncogene in PDAC by promoting cancer-associated inflammation. Targeting SPRY1 might be an important approach for designing new strategy of tumor therapy.
METHOD: The prognostic effect of PR status was based on the analysis of data from 45,088 European patients with breast cancer from 49 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the hazard ratio for PR status. Data from a New Zealand study of 11,365 patients with early invasive breast cancer were used for external validation. Model calibration and discrimination were used to test the model performance.
RESULTS: Having a PR-positive tumour was associated with a 23% and 28% lower risk of dying from breast cancer for women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative and ER-positive breast cancer, respectively. The area under the ROC curve increased with the addition of PR status from 0.807 to 0.809 for patients with ER-negative tumours (p = 0.023) and from 0.898 to 0.902 for patients with ER-positive tumours (p = 2.3 × 10-6) in the New Zealand cohort. Model calibration was modest with 940 observed deaths compared to 1151 predicted.
CONCLUSION: The inclusion of the prognostic effect of PR status to PREDICT Breast has led to an improvement of model performance and more accurate absolute treatment benefit predictions for individual patients. Further studies should determine whether the baseline hazard function requires recalibration.