243 PROGNOSTIC IMPACT OF CXCR7 AND CXCL12 EXPRESSION IN PATIENTS WITH ESOPHAGEAL ADENOCARCINOMA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chemokines are major regulators of cell trafficking and adhesion. The chemokine CXCL12 and its receptors, CXCR4 and CXCR7, have recently been reported as biomarkers in various cancers, including esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; however, there are few studies of these chemokines in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). In this study, we investigated the relationship between expression of CXCL12, CXCR4 and CXCR7, and prognosis in patients with EAC. Methods This study examined 55 patients with EAC who were treated in Toronto General Hospital from 2001 to 2010. Tissue microarray immunohistochemistry was used to evaluate the expression of CXCL12, CXCR4 and CXCR7. Evaluation of immunohistochemistry was performed by a pathologist without knowledge of patients’ information and scored based on a semiquantitative scoring system. The average score from multiple cancer tissues on the microarray was utilized and patients were divided into high or low expression groups using the median score as a cutoff point. These results were compared with the patients’ clinicopathological features and survival. Results The score of CXCR7 was positively correlated with that of CXCL12 (r = 0.3154). High CXCR7 expression was significantly associated with lymphatic invasion (present vs absent, P = 0.005), higher number of lymph node metastases (pN0–1 vs pN2–3, P = 0.0014) and TNM stage (Stage I-II vs III-IV, P = 0.0168). Patients with high CXCR7 (n = 23) expression was associated with worse overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (P = 0.0221, 0.0090, respectively), and patients with high CXCL12 (n = 24) tended to have worse OS and DFS (P = 0.1091, 0.1477, respectively). High expression of both CXCR7 and CXCL12 was an independent prognostic factor for DFS on multivariable analysis (HR0.3, 95%CI: 0.1–0.8, P = 0.0115). Conclusion High CXCR7 expression was associated with poor prognosis in patients with EAC, and high expression of CXCR7 and its ligand CXCL12, had a stronger association on prognosis. Further study of this potential biomarker using whole tissue samples and larger sample size is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".