Next Article in Journal
Long-Term Experience with Balloon Dilation for Short Bulbar and Membranous Urethral Strictures: Establishing a Baseline in the Active Drug Treatment Era
Next Article in Special Issue
Mediterranean Diet: The Beneficial Effects of Lycopene in Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
Previous Article in Journal
The Long-Term Effect of COVID-19 Disease Severity on Risk of Diabetes Incidence and the Near 1-Year Follow-Up Outcomes among Postdischarge Patients in Wuhan
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Genomic Relevance of FGFR2 on the Prognosis of HCV-Induced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients

1
Department of Biosciences, COMSATS University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
2
Department of Medical Microbiology and Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 22252, Saudi Arabia
3
Vaccines and Immunotherapy Unit, King Fahd Medical Research Center, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 22252, Saudi Arabia
4
Research and Scientific Studies Unit, College of Nursing and Allied Health Sciences, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia
5
King Fahd Medical Research Center, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 22230, Saudi Arabia
6
Yousef Abdul Latif Jameel Scientific Chair of Prophetic Medicine Application, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 22230, Saudi Arabia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Author has contributed as the lead author.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(11), 3093; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113093
Submission received: 18 April 2022 / Revised: 25 May 2022 / Accepted: 27 May 2022 / Published: 30 May 2022

Abstract

:
The Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptors (FGFRs) are known to regulate cancer metabolism in different tumor types, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Several risk factors are associated with HCC, of which viral infections (Hepatitis B and C) and cirrhosis are prominent. In Pakistan as well as in highly developed countries like the United States, hepatitis C virus HCV infections are most commonly reported in HCC. Here, we aimed to investigate the clinical relevance of FGFR receptors in HCC and their role in HCV-positive HCC cases. 264 HCC samples along with their clinical information and 96 normal liver samples were collected. qPCR was done to estimate the expression of FGFR1, FGFR2, FGFR3 and FGFR4. Three independent HCV-induced HCC cohorts (containing 293 HCC samples) were used for validation. According to in vitro results, FGFR1 was upregulated in HCV+ HCC patients. However, in all three independent cohorts of HCC, significant a down-regulation of FGFR1 was observed. FGFR2 overexpression was observed in the in vitro cohort as well as in three independent HCC cohorts. Interestingly, a strong correlation of FGFR2 expression was observed between cirrhosis and HCV in all four HCC cohorts. Our study suggested that FGFR2 expression can be used to classify HCC patients based on HCV infection. This FGFR2-based classification may lead to new therapeutic strategies against HCV-positive HCC subtypes.

1. Introduction

Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death. It is ranked as the fifth and ninth most common malignant tumor in men and women, respectively [1,2]. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) was historically one of the leading causes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver-related mortality [3]. It is among the most feared long-term complications for HCC patients [4].
Although risk factors associated with HCC are numerous, viral infections (including Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C), aflatoxin exposure, liver inflammation, and cirrhosis are the major factors associated with HCC [5,6]. HCC showed a high prevalence and mortality in the endemic areas of HBV and HCV infections [7,8,9]. Moreover, patients with HBV and HCV co-infection showed a higher probability of HCC development and mortality as compared to patients with HBV infection alone [10,11]. Therefore, defining the mechanisms by which viruses participate in molecular events in HCC development and progression is paramount for identifying new treatment targets.
FGFRs are a family of receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) encoded by four different genes (FGFR1–4) [12]. Fibroblast growth factor (FGF)/FGF receptor (FGFR) signaling has been reported to be involved in the progression of many cancers, and there is also increasing evidence for the role of FGF signaling in hepatocarcinogenesis [13]. FGFRs are involved in many critical processes including cell proliferation, embryonic development, and other important cellular processes [9]. FGFR3 and FGFR4 are the major FGFRs overexpressed in HCC [14]. Deregulated FGFR3 variants exhibit specific effects in the malignant progression of HCC cells [15]. FGFR has, reportedly, been involved in the progression of many other cancers as well [16]. Interestingly, a very recent study identified FGFR2 rs2981582 polymorphism in HCV-positive HCC patients, suggesting a linkage between HCV-induced HCC and FGFR2 polymorphism [17]. Nevertheless, the association between FGFR receptors and HCV-HBV-positive HCC patients is still largely unknown.
Approximately 80% of HCC patients worldwide have HCV infection [14]. Preliminary reports suggest that only a small percentage of HCC patients undergo screening and that they are usually diagnosed at an advanced stage when most therapeutics strategies are futile [18]. Moreover, due to limited financial and technical resources, no genome-wide studies for the classification of HCC patients are reported.
Thus, in the present study, we aimed to investigate the clinical relevance of FGFR receptors in 264 HCC patients from Pakistan. Since HCV is the most prominent risk factor in the Pakistani HCC cohort as well as in developed countries such as the United States, HCV plays an important role and is responsible for the increase in the HCC incidence in this country [19]. According to a recent study, Hepatitis C virus was the leading cause of hepatocellular carcinoma in Egypt (1054 [84%] of 1251 patients) [20]. Therefore we also evaluated the expression of FGFRs in HCV-positive HCC patients. Additionally, we validated our in vitro cohort’s finding in three independent HCC cohorts available in public repositories.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Collection

A total of 264 diagnosed HCC patients from well-reputed hospitals (Holy Family, PIMS and AFIP) in Pakistan were involved in this study. The project was formally approved by the COMSATS University bioethical committee and the respective hospitals. The bio-specimens, mainly preserved biopsy tissues in Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded (FFPE) blocks from these patients including controls, were collected along with their respective clinicopathological data (including HBV/HCV infections, vascular invasion, tumor size, etc.) from the concerned histopathological laboratory (Table 1). The samples of 264 patients and 36 pools of normal tissues were collected from hospitals of the Rawalpindi/Islamabad Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) and Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS).

2.2. RNA Extraction and cDNA Synthesis

RNA was extracted from 264 tumor tissues already preserved in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) blocks. Sixty independent normal liver tissue specimens were used as controls. Total RNA was extracted using TRIzol Reagent (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and quantified using a Nanodrop spectrophotometer (NanoPhotometer Pearl, IMPLEN, Munich, Germany) while considering the samples below 2.0 of the 260/280 ratio. cDNA was synthesized using the Fire Script cDNA Synthesis Kit (Solis Biodyne, Tartu, Estonia) as per the manufacturer’s instructions. PCR was performed with β-actin primers to confirm the cDNA synthesis. Amplified products were electrophoresed on 2% agarose gel and stained with ethidium bromide for further use.

2.3. Primer Designing

Primers for selected receptors of FGF genes (FGFR1, FGFR2, FGFR3, and FGFR4) mRNA were designed using Integrated DNA Technology (IDC) software, and their specificity was confirmed with NCBI Primer Blast to avoid non-specific binding.

2.4. qRT-PCR

Quantitative Real-Time PCR (qRT-PCR) was performed using VeriQuest SYBR Green qPCR Master Mix (Thermo Fisher Scientific, CA, United States). The expression of the target gene was normalized using β-actin as an internal control. The reaction condition included an initial denaturation at 95 °C for 8 min, followed by 35 cycles of denaturation at 95 °C for 30 s and annealing at 58 °C for FGFR1, FGFR2, FGFR3, and FGFR4 in each cycle. The relative expression and fold change were evaluated using the 2−ΔΔCt method.

2.5. Data Extraction and Processing

To validate the finding of the in vitro analysis, HCV-positive HCC patients were downloaded from the Geo database, including GSE14323, GSE78737, and GSE6764. These datasets were selected based on their study related to HCV-induced HCC. Geo datasets also contains clinical information including disease state, cirrhosis, viral infection, gender and age (Table S1).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Statistical Analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 21 software (IBM Inc., Armonk, NY, USA). A Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was performed to evaluate the difference between tumor and control. A Mann Whitney U-test and Kruskal Wallis tests were applied. p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Graphpad Prism 5 was used to draw out the graphical representation of the data.

3. Results

3.1. Expression Analysis of FGFR Genes in In Vitro

The expression of FGFR genes was estimated in a pool of 24 normal samples against 264 HCC-positive samples. The mean age of the patients in the in vitro cohort was 55 years, ranging from 10 to 90 years. Out of 264 HCC patients, 53% were above 55 years of age at the time of diagnosis. Around 39% of the cohort represented poorly differentiated HCC cases, and 50% represented advanced HCC cases. The distribution of these details along with clinical information is presented in Table 1. The clinicopathological analyses were performed for FGFR1, FGFR2, FGFR3 and FGFR4 against age, sex, grade stages, tumor stages, HCV, AFP, cirrhosis, vascular invasion, and cell type (atypical, dysplastic/polygonal, neoplastic) using different statistical approaches.

3.2. Association between FGFR Genes and Clinical Features

According to the results in Table 2, out of all four FGFRs, only the FGFR2 gene was significantly overexpressed between HCC and normal samples (p < 0.016) (Figure 1D). Additionally, FGFR2 showed a strong positive association with HCV (p < 0.003) (Figure 1E), cirrhosis (p < 0.016) (Figure 1F), and age ≤ 50 (p < 0.012) (Figure S1A). FGFR1 overexpression showed a significant association with HCV (p < 0.0001) (Figure 1B) and cirrhosis (p < 0.0001) (Figure 1C). Moreover, the expression of both FGFR3 and FGFR4 was significantly associated with cirrhosis (p < 0.05) (Figure 2C,F) while FGFR4 was also upregulated in HCV-positive HCC patients (p < 0.002) (Figure 2E).
The results suggested that all FGFRs were linked to different prognostic characteristics of HCC. Of note, FGFR1, FGFR2 and FGFR4 upregulation was also significant in HCV-positive HCC patients, suggesting a linkage between the expression of these genes and HCV positivity. Next, the data was collected from the Pakistani HCC cohort; we validated our in vitro findings using an independent dataset of HCV-positive HCC patients using publicly available datasets, to further establish the linkage between FGFRs and HCV infection.

3.3. Expression Analysis of FGFR Genes in Validation Cohorts

The expression analysis of FGFR1, FGFR2, FGFR3, and FGFR4 was then validated in three independent validation cohorts consisting of a total of 293 HCC cases (GSE14323, GSE78737, and GSE6764) (Table 3). All three validation cohorts contain viral-induced HCC HCV+ cases, which were also considered as a parameter for the analysis. The validation cohort 1 (GSE14323) consisted of 115 cases including normal samples, patients with cirrhosis and HCC patients with cirrhosis. All HCC patients were also HCV-positive. Consistent with our in vitro findings, FGFR2 was significantly upregulated in HCV+ HCC cases compared to normal samples (p < 0.0001) (Figure 3B). A strong correlation of FGFR2 expression was also observed in patients with cirrhosis (p < 0.0001) (Figure 3B). However, FGFR1 was significantly downregulated in HCV+ HCC cases (p < 0.0001) (Figure 3A). Interestingly, FGFR4 overexpression was more common in HCC patients with no cirrhosis (Figure 3D).
The validation cohort 2 (GSE78737) consists of 103 cases including normal samples, HCC patients, age, and gender. All HCC patients were also HCV-positive (Table 3). Similarly, a consistent pattern of FGFR1 and FGFR2 was observed against HCV. According to the results, FGFR2 (p < 0.004) (Figure 3F) and FGFR4 (p < 0.0001) (Figure 3H) were upregulated, while FGFR1 (p < 0.0001) (Figure 3E) and FGFR3 (p < 0.0001) (Figure 3G) were downregulated in HCV-induced HCC.
The validation cohort 3 (GSE6764) consisted of 75 cases including normal samples, patients with cirrhosis, dysplastic cell type, and HCC patients with cirrhosis. All patients were also HCV-positive (Table 3). Interestingly, a consistent pattern of FGFR1 and FGFR2 was observed in HCV-induced HCC cases, with a downregulation in FGFR1 (p < 0.028) (Figure 3I) and an upregulation of FGFR2 (p < 0.006) (Figure 3J) and cirrhosis (p < 0.02) (Figure S1B). Moreover, FGFR3 and FGFR4 showed a significant upregulation in advanced stages of HCC patients (Figure S1C,D).The results from three independent cohorts suggested a strong positive correlation between FGFR2 expression and HCV-positive cirrhosis patients as well as HCV-positive HCC patients. Moreover, FGFR1 expression was downregulated in HCC patients in three independent cohorts.

4. Discussion

The present study investigated the clinicopathological characteristics and expression of FGFRs in HCV-induced HCC patients. The results suggested that the upregulation of FGFR2 was the most common factor among HCV-positive HCC cohorts. Interestingly, a downregulation of FGFR1 expression was observed in HCC, suggesting different prognostic roles of FGFR1 compared to other FGFR receptors (i.e., FGFR2, FGFR3 and FGFR4). In brief, the expression of FGFR1 and FGFR2 may be used as important biomarkers for the subtyping of HCC.
Previous studies suggested that FGFR-mediated signaling played different roles in the cellular mechanisms of HCC [21]. FGFR1 expression has been reported in multiple cancer types including HCC. However, the differential role of FGFR1 expression has been observed in cancers. For instance, FGFR1 is recurrently upregulated in breast cancer, small cell lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, bronchoalveolar cancer, dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor, and prostate cancer [16]. In contrast, some studies showed that FGFR1 expression was linked to less aggressive types of cancers [22]. Of note, in our previous studies we observed that the overexpression of FGFR1 in pancreatic cancer was linked to a low-grade tumor and the better survival of patients, suggesting that it may serve as a good prognostic marker [23]. Interestingly, we also observed the downregulation of FGFR1 in our in vitro cohort of 264 Pakistani HCC patients. Furthermore, FGFR1 downregulation was also validated in three independent HCC cohorts containing 293 HCC patients. Therefore, we suggested that FGFR1 expression may represent a distinct subtype of HCC, leading to new therapeutic options.
FGFR4 is considered an important marker in the proliferation and survival of HCC patients [24]. Previously, FGFR4 dysregulation was reported in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis or cirrhosis [25,26]. Our study also showed that the overexpression of FGFR4 was a poor prognostic factor in HCC patients. Similarly, FGFR2 overexpression was also found in advanced clinical stages and linked with HCC metastasis [27].
The incidence and mortality are increasing worldwide due to the lack of treatment options and late-stage diagnosis [28].
In our study, an overexpression of FGFR2 was noted in HCV+ cirrhosis patients. Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infects approximately 71 million people worldwide and, beyond the liver damage, is considered to be a systemic disease [29]. In fact, the virus induces chronic liver damage, which can lead to the development of fibrosis, cirrhosis and its complications [30]. Previous studies demonstrated that chronic hepatitis C (HCV) infections caused liver damage, ultimately leading to liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [9]. Interestingly, a recent study showed that the rs2981582 variant of FGFR2 was linked to hepato-carcinogenesis in patients with chronic HCV [17], suggesting that it may act as a potential biomarker for HCV-induced cirrhosis patients.
In Pakistan, due to immense challenges in HCC screening and care, no genomic studies have tried to classify HCC based on major HCC biomarkers. Alarmingly, about 80% of HCC patients are diagnosed at a later stage and have poor prognosis features with a minimal chance of survival [31]. This limits the availability of the clinical data as most of the patients are diagnosed and treated at an advanced stage of cancer. A substantial load of HCV infections is reported in Pakistan. Moreover, Pakistan is among the top countries with an HCV prevalence [32]. Of note, more than 60% of HCC cases reported in Pakistan are HCV-positive, further emphasizing the significance of classifying HCC patients based on HCV infections. Our study revealed that FGFR2 expression may play a critical role in the progression of HCV-induced cirrhosis patients. Preclinical and clinical studies are required in future to establish the therapeutic implications of FGFR2 expression in HCV-induced HCC patients. The implication of FGFR2 expression in HCC inducing viral infection can be studied against the therapeutic targets of HCC.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm11113093/s1, Figure S1: (A) Overexpression of FGFR2 in Age group below 50 in vitro. (B) Overexpression of FGFR2 in Cirrhosis in cohort 3. (C) Overexpression of FGFR3 in Advance stage of HCC in cohort 3. (D) Overexpression of FGFR4 in Advance stage of HCC in cohort 3; Table S1: Clinical Features of 3 independent datasets.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.H. (Steve Harakeh) and F.H.; Data curation, A.M.H.; Formal analysis, W.K., W.A. and A.M.H.; Funding acquisition, S.H. (Steve Harakeh); Investigation, W.K. and S.Z.; Supervision, F.H.; Validation, W.K., W.A. and S.Z.; Visualization, W.K. and S.H. (Shafiul Haque); Writing—original draft, W.K.; Writing—review & editing, M.F.A.M., S.H. (Steve Harakeh) and F.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research work was funded by the Institutional Fund projects under grant no. (IFFPP-105-22). Therefore, the authors gratefully acknowledge technical and financial support from the Ministry of Education and King Abdulaziz University, DSR, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards ((IRB # 2012–0389, ASAN Medical Center, Korea), (COMSATS University Islamabad (CIIT/Bio/ERB/16/21)).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Multiple publicly available datasets are used in the study. The details are provided in the Section 2 where necessary.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bray, F.; Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Siegel, R.L.; Torre, L.A.; Jemal, A. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2018, 68, 394–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Ward, E.M.; Sherman, R.L.; Henley, S.J.; Jemal, A.; Siegel, D.A.; Feuer, E.J.; Firth, A.U.; Kohler, B.A.; Scott, S.; Ma, J.; et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, Featuring Cancer in Men and Women Age 20–49 Years. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2019, 111, 1279–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Ogawa, E.; Nomura, H.; Nakamuta, M.; Furusyo, N.; Kajiwara, E.; Dohmen, K.; Kawano, A.; Ooho, A.; Azuma, K.; Takahashi, K.; et al. Incidence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Treatment with Sofosbuvir-Based or Sofosbuvir-Free Regimens in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C. Cancers 2020, 12, 2602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Rosato, V.; Ascione, A.; Nevola, R.; Fracanzani, A.L.; Piai, G.; Messina, V.; Claar, E.; Coppola, C.; Fontanella, L.; Lombardi, R.; et al. Factors Affecting Long-term Changes of Liver Stiffness in Direct-acting Anti-hepatitis C Virus Therapy: A Multicentre Prospective Study. J. Viral Hepat. 2022, 29, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Chen, Q.-F.; Xia, J.-G.; Li, W.; Shen, L.-J.; Huang, T.; Wu, P. Examining the Key Genes and Pathways in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Development from Hepatitis B Virus-positive Cirrhosis. Mol. Med. Rep. 2018, 18, 4940–4950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Omata, M.; Cheng, A.-L.; Kokudo, N.; Kudo, M.; Lee, J.M.; Jia, J.; Tateishi, R.; Han, K.-H.; Chawla, Y.K.; Shiina, S.; et al. Asia–Pacific Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A 2017 Update. Hepatol. Int. 2017, 11, 317–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Yang, J.D.; Hainaut, P.; Gores, G.J.; Amadou, A.; Plymoth, A.; Roberts, L.R. A Global View of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Trends, Risk, Prevention and Management. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019, 16, 589–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ding, X.-X.; Zhu, Q.-G.; Zhang, S.-M.; Guan, L.; Li, T.; Zhang, L.; Wang, S.-Y.; Ren, W.-L.; Chen, X.-M.; Zhao, J.; et al. Precision Medicine for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Driver Mutations and Targeted Therapy. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 55715–55730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. El-Serag, H.B. Epidemiology of Viral Hepatitis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2012, 142, 1264–1273.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Miao, Z.; Zhang, S.; Ou, X.; Li, S.; Ma, Z.; Wang, W.; Peppelenbosch, M.P.; Liu, J.; Pan, Q. Estimating the Global Prevalence, Disease Progression, and Clinical Outcome of Hepatitis Delta Virus Infection. J. Infect. Dis. 2020, 221, 1677–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Elpek, G.O. Molecular Pathways in Viral Hepatitis-Associated Liver Carcinogenesis: An Update. WJCC 2021, 9, 4890–4917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Itoh, N.; Ornitz, D.M. Fibroblast Growth Factors: From Molecular Evolution to Roles in Development, Metabolism and Disease. J. Biochem. 2011, 149, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Lee, H.J.; Kang, H.J.; Kim, K.M.; Yu, E.S.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, S.-M.; Kim, T.W.; Shim, J.H.; Lim, Y.-S.; Lee, H.C.; et al. Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor Isotype Expression and Its Association with Overall Survival in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Clin. Mol. Hepatol. 2015, 21, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Wang, Y.; Liu, D.; Zhang, T.; Xia, L. FGF/FGFR Signaling in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Carcinogenesis to Recent Therapeutic Intervention. Cancers 2021, 13, 1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Paur, J.; Nika, L.; Maier, C.; Moscu-Gregor, A.; Kostka, J.; Huber, D.; Mohr, T.; Heffeter, P.; Schrottmaier, W.C.; Kappel, S.; et al. Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 3 Isoforms: Novel Therapeutic Targets for Hepatocellular Carcinoma? Hepatology 2015, 62, 1767–1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Xie, Y.; Su, N.; Yang, J.; Tan, Q.; Huang, S.; Jin, M.; Ni, Z.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, D.; Luo, F.; et al. FGF/FGFR Signaling in Health and Disease. Sig. Transduct. Target Ther. 2020, 5, 181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Al-Khaykanee, A.M.; Abdel-Rahman, A.A.-H.; Essa, A.; Gadallah, A.-N.A.-A.; Ali, B.H.; Al-Aqar, A.A.; Badr, E.A.E.; Shehab-Eldeen, S. Genetic Polymorphism of Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 2 and Trinucleotide Repeat-Containing 9 Influence the Susceptibility to HCV-Induced Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Clin. Res. Hepatol. Gastroenterol. 2021, 45, 101636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hafeez Bhatti, A.B.; Dar, F.S.; Waheed, A.; Shafique, K.; Sultan, F.; Shah, N.H. Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Pakistan: National Trends and Global Perspective. Available online: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/grp/2016/5942306/ (accessed on 12 March 2019).
  19. Yu, M.C.; Yuan, J.-M. Environmental Factors and Risk for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2004, 127, S72–S78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yang, J.D.; Mohamed, E.A.; Aziz, A.O.A.; Shousha, H.I.; Hashem, M.B.; Nabeel, M.M.; Abdelmaksoud, A.H.; Elbaz, T.M.; Afihene, M.Y.; Duduyemi, B.M.; et al. Characteristics, Management, and Outcomes of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Africa: A Multicountry Observational Study from the Africa Liver Cancer Consortium. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017, 2, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Ahmad, I.; Iwata, T.; Leung, H.Y. Mechanisms of FGFR-Mediated Carcinogenesis. Biochim. Biophys. Acta BBA Mol. Cell Res. 2012, 1823, 850–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Zhao, L.; Zhao, H.; Yan, H. Gene Expression Profiling of 1200 Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Reveals Novel Subtypes. BMC Cancer 2018, 18, 603. Available online: https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-018-4546-8 (accessed on 1 October 2021).
  23. Haq, F.; Sung, Y.-N.; Park, I.; Kayani, M.A.; Yousuf, F.; Hong, S.-M.; Ahn, S.-M. FGFR1 Expression Defines Clinically Distinct Subtypes in Pancreatic Cancer. J. Transl. Med. 2018, 16, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Jo, J.-C.; Choi, E.K.; Shin, J.-S.; Moon, J.-H.; Hong, S.-W.; Lee, H.-R.; Kim, S.-M.; Jung, S.-A.; Lee, D.-H.; Jung, S.H.; et al. Targeting FGFR Pathway in Human Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Expressing PFGFR and PMET for Antitumor Activity. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2015, 14, 2613–2622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Yu, Y.; Shi, X.; Zheng, Q.; Wang, X.; Liu, X.; Tan, M.; Lv, G.; Zhang, P.; Martin, R.C.; Li, Y. Aberrant FGFR4 Signaling Worsens Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis in FGF21KO Mice. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 17, 2576–2589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Sheu, M.-J.; Hsieh, M.-J.; Chiang, W.-L.; Yang, S.-F.; Lee, H.-L.; Lee, L.-M.; Yeh, C.-B. Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptor 4 Polymorphism Is Associated with Liver Cirrhosis in Hepatocarcinoma. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0122961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gatius, S.; Velasco, A.; Azueta, A.; Santacana, M.; Pallares, J.; Valls, J.; Dolcet, X.; Prat, J.; Matias-Guiu, X. FGFR2 Alterations in Endometrial Carcinoma. Mod. Pathol. 2011, 24, 1500–1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Axley, P.; Ahmed, Z.; Ravi, S.; Singal, A.K. Hepatitis C Virus and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Narrative Review. J. Clin. Transl. Hepatol. 2018, 6, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Adinolfi, L.E.; Petta, S.; Fracanzani, A.L.; Nevola, R.; Coppola, C.; Narciso, V.; Rinaldi, L.; Calvaruso, V.; Pafundi, P.C.; Lombardi, R.; et al. Reduced Incidence of Type 2 Diabetes in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection Cleared by Direct-acting Antiviral Therapy: A Prospective Study. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2020, 22, 2408–2416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sasso, F.C.; Pafundi, P.C.; Caturano, A.; Galiero, R.; Vetrano, E.; Nevola, R.; Petta, S.; Fracanzani, A.L.; Coppola, C.; Di Marco, V.; et al. Impact of Direct Acting Antivirals (DAAs) on Cardiovascular Events in HCV Cohort with Pre-Diabetes. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2021, 31, 2345–2353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Maryam, M.; Idrees, M. Study of Promoter Hypomethylation Profiles of RAS Oncogenes in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Derived from Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 3a in Pakistani Population. J. Med. Virol. 2018, 90, 1516–1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chhatwal, J.; Chen, Q.; Wang, X.; Ayer, T.; Zhuo, Y.; Janjua, N.Z.; Kanwal, F. Assessment of the Feasibility and Cost of Hepatitis C Elimination in Pakistan. JAMA Netw. Open 2019, 2, e193613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. (A) FGFR1 expression in HCC shows no significant p-value. (B) Upregulation of FGFR1 in HCV+ patients. (C) FGFR1 upregulation in cirrhosis. (D) Overexpression of FGFR2 in HCC. (E) Upregulation of FGFR2 in HCV+ patients. (F) FGFR2 upregulation in cirrhosis.
Figure 1. (A) FGFR1 expression in HCC shows no significant p-value. (B) Upregulation of FGFR1 in HCV+ patients. (C) FGFR1 upregulation in cirrhosis. (D) Overexpression of FGFR2 in HCC. (E) Upregulation of FGFR2 in HCV+ patients. (F) FGFR2 upregulation in cirrhosis.
Jcm 11 03093 g001
Figure 2. (A) FGFR3 expression in HCC shows no significant p-value. (B) Regulation of FGFR3 in HCV+ patients shows no significant p-value. (C) FGFR3 is upregulated in cirrhosis. (D) FGFR4 expression in HCC shows no significant p-value. (E) FGFR4 upregulation in HCV+ patients. (F) Upregulation of FGFR4 in cirrhosis.
Figure 2. (A) FGFR3 expression in HCC shows no significant p-value. (B) Regulation of FGFR3 in HCV+ patients shows no significant p-value. (C) FGFR3 is upregulated in cirrhosis. (D) FGFR4 expression in HCC shows no significant p-value. (E) FGFR4 upregulation in HCV+ patients. (F) Upregulation of FGFR4 in cirrhosis.
Jcm 11 03093 g002
Figure 3. (A) Expression analysis of FGFR1 in different states of disease in cohort 1. (B) Expression analysis of FGFR2 in different states of disease in cohort 1. (C) Expression analysis of FGFR3 in different states of disease in cohort 1. (D) Expression analysis of FGFR4 in different states of disease in cohort 1. (E) Expression analysis of FGFR1 in HCC in cohort 2. (F) Expression analysis of FGFR2 in HCC in cohort 2. (G) Expression analysis of FGFR3 in HCC in cohort 2. (H) Expression analysis of FGFR4 in HCC in cohort 2. (I) Expression analysis of FGFR1 in HCC in cohort 3. (J) Expression analysis of FGFR2 in HCC in cohort 3. (K) Expression analysis of FGFR3 in HCC in cohort 3. (L) Expression analysis of FGFR2 in HCC in cohort 3.
Figure 3. (A) Expression analysis of FGFR1 in different states of disease in cohort 1. (B) Expression analysis of FGFR2 in different states of disease in cohort 1. (C) Expression analysis of FGFR3 in different states of disease in cohort 1. (D) Expression analysis of FGFR4 in different states of disease in cohort 1. (E) Expression analysis of FGFR1 in HCC in cohort 2. (F) Expression analysis of FGFR2 in HCC in cohort 2. (G) Expression analysis of FGFR3 in HCC in cohort 2. (H) Expression analysis of FGFR4 in HCC in cohort 2. (I) Expression analysis of FGFR1 in HCC in cohort 3. (J) Expression analysis of FGFR2 in HCC in cohort 3. (K) Expression analysis of FGFR3 in HCC in cohort 3. (L) Expression analysis of FGFR2 in HCC in cohort 3.
Jcm 11 03093 g003
Table 1. Clinical features of 264 Pakistani HCC patients.
Table 1. Clinical features of 264 Pakistani HCC patients.
CharacteristicsNo. of Patients% Age
Age-wise distribution of HCC Patients
>5014153%
≤5012347%
Gender-based distribution of HCC Patients
Male22284%
Female3914%
NA (Not Available)31%
HCV-based distribution of HCC Patients
Positive3011.3%
Negative62%
NA (Not Available)22886%
Grade-based distribution of HCC Patients
Grade 1-G110539.7%
Grade 2-G210539.7%
Grade 3-G32710%
Nuclei appearance based on HCC Patients
Pleomorphic14454.5%
Non-Pleomorphic6022.7%
HePar1-based distribution of HCC Patients
Positive11443%
Negative155%
AFP status-based distribution of HCC Patients
High AFP status2710%
Low AFP status93.4%
Cirrhosis-based distribution of HCC Patients
Cirrhosis-Present3011%
No Cirrhosis-Absent4818%
Vascular Invasion status based on HCC Patients
Vascular Invasion-Present155%
No Vascular Invasion-Absent3312%
Table 2. Association of FGFRs’ expression with clinical features.
Table 2. Association of FGFRs’ expression with clinical features.
FeaturesFGFR1FGFR2FGFR3FGFR4
Chi-Square/
Z-Score
Sig.Chi-Square/
Z-Score
Sig.Chi-Square/
Z-Score
Sig.Chi-Square/
Z-Score
Sig.
Normal/HCC patients −2.4190.016
Age group--−2.5100.012----
HCV−3.7500.000−2.9510.003--−3.0660.002
Cirrhosis Status−2.6900.007−2.4360.015−2.0450.041−2.8670.004
Vascular Invasion−3.0200.003------
Table 3. Association of FGFRs in three independent cohorts.
Table 3. Association of FGFRs in three independent cohorts.
DatasetsGenesFGFR1FGFR2FGFR3FGFR4
VariableChi-Square/
Z-Score
Sig.Chi-Square/
Z-Score
Sig.Chi-Square/
Z-Score
Sig.Chi-Square/
Z-Score
Sig.
GSE14323Normal vs. Disease−3.7350.000−5.9680.000--−2.5300.011
Normal vs. HCC−3.7920.000−4.1980.000----
Normal vs. Cirrhosis HCC--−4.9440.000--−3.6280.000
Normal vs. Cirrhosis−3.6150.000−6.1740.000−3.7110.000−3.9330.000
Disease States20.3650.00063.1540.00027.0270.00044.6860.000
GSE78737Age------−3.3510.001
Normal vs. HCC−6.0560.000−2.9010.004−4.0180.000−5.6300.000
GSE6764Normal vs. HCC−2.1980.028−2.7430.006--−2.3900.0091
HCC Early/Advance----−2.3760.017−2.5410.011
Normal vs. Cirrhotic Liver--−2.3260.020----
Normal vs. Dysplastic Liver Tissue----−3.3140.001--
Disease States27.0460.00118.0740.02124.6600.00234.3900.000
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khan, W.; Ahmad, W.; Hashem, A.M.; Zakai, S.; Haque, S.; Malik, M.F.A.; Harakeh, S.; Haq, F. Genomic Relevance of FGFR2 on the Prognosis of HCV-Induced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3093. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113093

AMA Style

Khan W, Ahmad W, Hashem AM, Zakai S, Haque S, Malik MFA, Harakeh S, Haq F. Genomic Relevance of FGFR2 on the Prognosis of HCV-Induced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(11):3093. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113093

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khan, Walizeb, Washaakh Ahmad, Anwar M. Hashem, Shadi Zakai, Shafiul Haque, Muhammad Faraz Arshad Malik, Steve Harakeh, and Farhan Haq. 2022. "Genomic Relevance of FGFR2 on the Prognosis of HCV-Induced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 11: 3093. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113093

APA Style

Khan, W., Ahmad, W., Hashem, A. M., Zakai, S., Haque, S., Malik, M. F. A., Harakeh, S., & Haq, F. (2022). Genomic Relevance of FGFR2 on the Prognosis of HCV-Induced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(11), 3093. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11113093

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop