Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34268374›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021

CYR61 as a potential biomarker for the preoperative identification of muscle-invasive bladder cancers.

Huang Chen, Yu Liu, Chuanzhen Cao, Hao Xi, Wenting Chen, Wei Zheng, Xin Dong, Shan Zheng, Lin Li, Jianhui Ma and 2 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Huang ChenState Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yu LiuState Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Chuanzhen CaoDepartment of Urology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Hao XiState Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Wenting ChenState Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Wei ZhengDepartment of Urology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Xin DongState Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Shan ZhengDepartment of Pathology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Lin LiDepartment of Pathology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Jianhui MaDepartment of Urology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Yanning GaoState Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Jianzhong ShouDepartment of Urology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe biological behaviors, clinical treatment, prognosis of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancers (NMIBCs) and muscle-invasive bladder cancers (MIBCs) are distinct. Accurate staging is pivotal in optimal therapy planning for bladder cancers (BCs). However, it is insufficient for urologists in preoperative determining whether the tumor has invaded within the muscularis propria through cystoscope and imaging methods (CT or MRI). Therefore, searching for ideal biomarkers from the tumor tissues and urine is important for identifying the MIBCs preoperatively.

methodsDifferentially expressed genes between NMIBCs and MIBCs were identified by microarray analysis and validated by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) and immunohistochemical analysis. The correlation between cysteine-rich angiogenic inducer 61 (CYR61) expression and Kaplan-Meier test evaluated patients' overall survival (OS). CYR61 protein levels were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in preoperatively collected urine samples from BC patients. The receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyzed the diagnostic accuracy of uric CYR61. The siRNA mediated silencing of CYR61 in bladder carcinoma cells was performed using Lipofectamine 2000. Cell migration and invasion were assessed using wound healing and transwell assay, respectively.

resultsDifferential gene expression analysis using microarray between 14 MIBCs and 16 NMIBCs human tumor samples revealed a significant increase (P<0.001) in the expression of CYR61 in MIBCs compared with NMIBCs. Higher expression of CYR61 in MIBCs was found in additional 54 tumor samples using qRT-PCR. Therefore, the overexpression of CYR61 in MIBCs could be used as a potential biomarker to distinguish between MIBCs and NMIBCs. ELISA detected elevated levels of CYR61 in the urine samples of MIBC patients (average 2.5-fold) compared with NMIBCs, with 72.7% sensitivity and 86.0% specificity to distinguish MIBCs from NMIBCs. Wound healing and transwell assays using CYR61-silenced carcinoma cells indicated the role of CYR61 in cell migration and invasion.

conclusionsCYR61 expression is higher in MIBCs compared with NMIBCs and can serve as a promising biomarker for the preoperative diagnosis of MIBCs with prognostic value; however, multicentric prospective validation is essential for the further evaluation of CYR61.

Indexed as

biomarkerBladder cancer (BC)cysteine-rich angiogenic inducer 61 (CYR61)muscle-invasive bladder cancers (MIBCs)non-muscle-invasive bladder cancers (NMIBCs)

Identifiers

PMID34268374
PMCPMC8246191
OpenAlexW3153296985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.