No abstract

Background Circular RNAs (circRNAs) regulate various biological activities and have been shown to play crucial roles in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) progression. However, only a few coding circRNAs have been identified in cancers, and their roles in HCC remain elusive. This study aimed to identify coding circRNAs and explore their function in HCC. Methods CircMAP3K4 was selected from the CIRCpedia database. We performed a series of experiments to determine the characteristics and coding capacity of circMAP3K4. We then used in vivo and in vitro assays to investigate the biological function and mechanism of circMAP3K4 and its protein product, circMAP3K4-455aa, in HCC. Results We found circMAP3K4 to be an upregulated circRNA with coding potential in HCC. IGF2BP1 recognized the circMAP3K4 N6-methyladenosine modification and promoted its translation into circMAP3K4-455aa. Functionally, circMAP3K4-455aa prevented cisplatin-induced apoptosis in HCC cells by interacting with AIF, thus protecting AIF from cleavage and decreasing its nuclear distribution. Moreover, circMAP3K4-455aa was degraded through the ubiquitin–proteasome E3 ligase MIB1 pathway. Clinically, a high level of circMAP3K4 is an independent prognostic factor for adverse overall survival and adverse disease-free survival of HCC patients. Conclusions CircMAP3K4 is a highly expressed circRNA in HCC. Driven by m6A modification, circMAP3K4 encoded circMAP3K4-455aa, protected HCC cells from cisplatin exposure, and predicted worse prognosis of HCC patients. Targeting circMAP3K4-455aa may provide a new therapeutic strategy for HCC patients, especially for those with chemoresistance. Graphical Abstract CircMAP3K4 is a highly expressed circRNA in HCC. Driven by m6A modification, IGF2BP1 facilitates circMAP3K4 peptide translation, then the circMAP3K4 peptide inhibits AIF cleavage and nuclear distribution, preventing HCC cells from cell death under stress and promoting HCC progression.

Background and Objectives: Previous studies of the prognostic value of the signet ring cell (SRC) type have yielded inconsistent results. Therefore, the aim of the present meta-analysis is to explore the clinicopathological characteristics and prognostic value of SRCs.Methods: Relevant articles that compared SRC and non-SRC type in PubMed and Web of Science were comprehensively searched. Then, a meta-analysis was performed.Results: A total of 19 studies including 35947 cases were analyzed. Compared with non-SRC patients, SRC patients tended to be younger (WMD: -3.88, P=0.001) and predominantly female (OR: 1.60, P<0.001). Additionally, SRC patients exhibited less upper third tumor location (OR: 0.62, P<0.001) and less frequent hematogenous metastasis (OR: 0.41, P<0.001). There was no difference in overall survival (OS) between SRC and non-SRC patients in the total population (HR: 1.02, P=0.830). Early gastric cancer with SRCs was associated with better OS (HR: 0.57, P=0.002), while advanced gastric cancer with non-SRCs was associated with a worse prognosis (HR: 1.17, P<0.001).Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed that SRC tends to affect young females and tends to be located in the middle and lower third of the stomach. Early SRCs are associated with better prognoses, while advanced SRCs are associated with worse prognoses.

BackgroundThe current study sought to perform a meta-analysis to compare the preoperative staging of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in gastric carcinoma.MethodsArticles published between January 1, 2000, and April 1, 2016, that compared EUS with MDCT were included, and data were presented as 2 × 2 tables. The sensitivities, specificities and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for T and N staging were calculated using a bivariate mixed effects model. Data were weighted by generic variance and then pooled by random-effects modeling.ResultsEight studies comprising 1736 patients were included in this meta-analysis. For T1 staging, the sensitivity value for EUS (82%) was significantly higher than that for MDCT (41%) (relative risk (RR): 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07–3.94; P = 0.030). For lymph node involvement, the sensitivity value for EUS (91%) was also significantly higher than that for MDCT (77%) (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05–1.23; P = 0.001). However, the specificity values of both EUS and MDCT were quite low, at 49 and 63%, respectively. No significant differences in T2–4 staging between EUS and MDCT were noted.ConclusionThis meta-analysis indicates that EUS may be superior to MDCT in preoperative T1 and N staging. Additionally, the low specificity values of EUS and MDCT for N staging merits attention.

Background : To investigate prognostic factors and recurrence patterns in T4 gastric cancer (GC) patients after curative resection. Methods : Between January 2004 and December 2014, 249 patients with T4 gastric cancer undergoing curative resection were recruited. Patient characteristics, survival, prognostic factors and recurrence patterns were analyzed. Results : Our results showed that the median survival time (MST) for T4 gastric cancer after curative resection was 55.47 months, with 59.47 months for T4a (tumor perforating serosa) and 25.90 months for T4b (tumor invasion of the adjacent structure). Multivariate analysis indicated that age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.86; P = 0.006), location of tumor (HR, 1.25, 0.90 - 5.64; P < 0.001) and intraoperative blood loss (HR, 1.85; P = 0.010) were independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS). After a median follow-up of 25.87 months, a total of 109 (43.8%) patients suffered from recurrence, and 90 patients had been observed specific recurrence sites, among which peritoneal metastasis was the most common recurrence pattern, 59.0% for T4a and 88.3% for T4b, respectively. Conclusions : For T4 gastric cancer patients after curative resection, older age, gastric cancer of the entire stomach and more intraoperative blood loss were associated with poor OS. The recurrence rate after curative resection for T4 was high, and the most common recurrence pattern was peritoneal metastasis.