Correlation between serum levels of HAMP， SPP1， RGS2 and clinical pathological characteristics of gastric cancer patients and their predictive value for postoperative recurrence or metastasis

doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn371439-20240927-00085

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To explore the correlation between serum hepcidin antimicrobial peptide （HAMP）， secreted phosphoprotein 1 （SPP1）， and regulator of G protein signaling 2 （RGS2） levels and the clinical pathological characteristics of gastric cancer patients， and their predictive value for postoperative recurrence or metastasis. Methods A total of 92 gastric cancer patients treated at Handan First Hospital from March 2021 to March 2023 were selected as the gastric cancer group， and 92 healthy individuals who underwent physical examinations during the same period were selected as the control group. The serum levels of HAMP， SPP1 and RGS2 were compared between the two groups. According to the mean levels of HAMP， SPP1， and RGS2 in the serum of gastric cancer patients， they were divided into HAMP high level group and HAMP low level group， SPP1 high level group and SPP1 low level group， RGS2 high level group and RGS2 low level group. The clinicopathological characteristics of gastric cancer patients with different levels of HAMP， SPP1 and RGS2 were compared respectively. After a median follow-up of 18 months， gastric cancer patients were divided into a non-recurrence or metastasis group （n=59） and a recurrence and metastasis group （n=33） based on whether the tumor recurred or metastasized. The serum levels of HAMP， SPP1， and RGS2 were compared between the two groups of patients. The predictive value of HAMP， SPP1 and RGS2 for postoperative recurrence or metastasis in patients with gastric cancer was analyzed by using the receiver operator characteristic （ROC） curve. Results Compared with the control group， the gastric cancer group had higher levels of serum HAMP [（52.28±5.44） ng/ml vs. （31.22±4.18） ng/ml] and SPP1 [（55.96±6.43） ng/ml vs. （36.99±5.25） ng/ml] （t=29.44， P<0.001； t=21.92， P<0.001）， and lower level of RGS2 [（3.72±0.66） mg/L vs. （5.11±0.87） mg/L）] （t=12.21， P<0.001）. There were statistically significant differences in maximum tumor diameter （χ²=13.07， P<0.001； χ²=6.71， P=0.010； χ²=10.56， P=0.001）， TNM staging （χ²=7.42， P=0.006； χ²=6.36， P=0.012； χ²=5.39， P=0.020）， lymph node metastasis （χ²=23.41， P<0.001； χ²=6.52， P=0.011； χ²=13.11， P<0.001）， and differentiation degree （χ²=9.01， P=0.003； χ²=7.97， P=0.005； χ²=15.29， P<0.001） between the gastric cancer patients in the HAMP high level group （n=44） and the HAMP low level group （n=48）， the SPP1 high level group （n=43） and the SPP1 low level group （n=49）， and the RGS2 high level group （n=50） and the RGS2 low level group （n=42）. Compared with the non-recurrence or metastatic group， the recurrence and metastatic group had higher levels of serum HAMP [（59.26±5.66） ng/ml vs. （48.37±4.28） ng/ml] and SPP1 [（62.85±6.36） ng/ml vs. （52.11±5.38） ng/ml] level （t=10.40， P<0.001； t=8.60， P<0.001）， and lower level of RGS2 [（3.01±0.48） mg/L vs. （4.12±0.69） mg/L] （t=8.19， P<0.001）. ROC curve analysis showed that the area under the curve （AUC） values of serum HAMP， SPP1， and RGS2 levels alone for predicting postoperative recurrence or metastasis in gastric cancer patients were 0.777， 0.813， and 0.778， respectively. The AUC value of the combination of the three indicators for predicting postoperative recurrence or metastasis in gastric cancer patients was 0.871. The predictive efficacy of the combination of the three indicators for predicting postoperative recurrence or metastasis in gastric cancer patients was better than that alone （Z=2.51， P=0.035； Z=2.61， P=0.032； Z=2.71， P=0.029）. Conclusions The levels of HAMP and SPP1 in the serum of gastric cancer patients increase， while the level of RGS2 decreases， and the levels of the three are related to the maximum tumor diameter， TNM staging， lymph node metastasis and differentiation degree， and their combined detection has higher predictive value for postoperative recurrence or metastasis in gastric cancer patients.

Key words: Stomach neoplasms, Hepcidin antimicrobial peptide, Secreted phosphoprotein 1, Regulator of G protein signaling 2, Clinicopathologic features, Recurrence or metastasis, Prediction

Li Guangxin, Quan Huijuan, Gao Zhijuan, Wang Xiaojun, Li Liang, Dong Qian, Miao Yongtao, Liu Dongsheng. Correlation between serum levels of HAMP， SPP1， RGS2 and clinical pathological characteristics of gastric cancer patients and their predictive value for postoperative recurrence or metastasis[J]. Journal of International Oncology, 2025, 52(8): 502-507.

Figures/Tables 5

临床病理特征	例数	HAMP高水平组（n=44）	HAMP低水平组（n=48）	χ²值	P值	SPP1高水平组（n=43）	SPP1低水平组（n=49）	χ²值	P值	RGS2高水平组（n=50）	RGS2低水平组（n=42）	χ²值	P值
年龄（岁）
≥60	56	23（41.07）	33（58.93）	2.62	0.106	24（42.86）	32（57.14）	0.87	0352	28（50.00）	28（50.00）	1.09	0.296
<60	36	21（58.33）	15（41.67）	2.62	0.106	19（52.78）	17（47.22）	0.87	0352	22（61.11）	14（38.89）	1.09	0.296
性别
男	54	23（42.59）	31（57.41）	1.44	0.231	26（48.15）	28（51.85）	0.10	0.747	27（50.00）	27（50.00）	1.00	0.318
女	38	21（55.26）	17（44.74）	1.44	0.231	17（44.74）	21（55.26）	0.10	0.747	23（60.53）	15（39.47）	1.00	0.318
肿瘤最大径（cm）
≤5.0	41	11（26.83）	30（73.17）	13.07	<0.001	13（31.71）	28（68.29）	6.71	0.010	30（73.17）	11（26.83）	10.56	0.001
>5.0	51	33（64.71）	18（35.29）	13.07	<0.001	30（58.82）	21（41.18）	6.71	0.010	20（39.22）	31（60.78）	10.56	0.001
TNM分期
Ⅰ~Ⅱ期	45	15（33.33）	30（66.67）	7.42	0.006	15（33.33）	30（66.67）	6.36	0.012	30（66.67）	15（33.33）	5.39	0.020
Ⅲ期	47	29（61.70）	18（38.30）	7.42	0.006	28（59.57）	19（40.43）	6.36	0.012	20（42.55）	27（57.45）	5.39	0.020
淋巴结转移
有	49	35（71.43）	14（28.57）	23.41	<0.001	29（59.18）	20（40.82）	6.52	0.011	18（36.73）	31（63.27）	13.11	<0.001
无	43	9（20.93）	34（79.07）	23.41	<0.001	14（32.56）	29（67.44）	6.52	0.011	32（74.42）	11（25.58）	13.11	<0.001
分化程度
低分化	52	32（61.54）	20（38.46）	9.01	0.003	31（59.62）	21（40.38）	7.97	0.005	19（36.54）	33（63.46）	15.29	<0.001
中高分化	40	12（30.00）	28（70.00）	9.01	0.003	12（30.00）	28（70.00）	7.97	0.005	31（77.50）	9（22.50）	15.29	<0.001
注：HAMP为铁调素抗菌肽；SPP1为分泌型磷蛋白1；RGS2为G蛋白信号转导调节因子2；HAMP高水平组为HAMP≥52.28 ng/ml；HAMP低水平组为HAMP<52.28 ng/ml；SPP1高水平组为SPP1≥55.96 ng/ml；SPP1低水平组为SPP1<55.96 ng/ml；RGS2高水平组为RGS2≥3.72 mg/L；RGS2低水平组为RGS2<3.72 mg/L

References 23

[1]	Chen D, Fu M, Chi L, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of a pathomics signature in gastric cancer[J]. Nat Commun, 2022, 13(1): 6903. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-34703-w.
[2]	Al-Amer O, Alsharif KF. Frequency of the HAMP polymorphism in iron deficiency in Saudi Arabia[J]. Pak J Biol Sci, 2021, 24(1): 146-150. DOI: 10.3923/pjbs.2021.146.150. pmid: 33683041
[3]	Pasricha SR, Tye-Din J, Muckenthaler MU, et al. Iron deficiency[J]. Lancet, 2021, 397(10270): 233-248. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32594-0.
[4]	Phipps O, Brookes MJ, Al-Hassi HO. And colorectal cancer[J]. Nutr Rev, 2021, 79(1): 88-97. DOI: 10.1093/nutrit/nuaa040.
[5]	Jiang N, Jin L, Li S. Role of SPP1 in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal cancer[J]. Oncol Lett, 2023, 26(3): 411-420. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2023.13997. pmid: 37614657
[6]	Pang X, Xie R, Zhang Z, et al. Identification of SPP1 as an extracellular matrix signature for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer[J]. Front Oncol, 2019, 9: 924. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00924. pmid: 31620371
[7]	Li X. LINC01140 targeting miR-452-5p/RGS2 pathway to attenuate breast cancer tumorigenesis[J]. Dis Markers, 2022, 2022: 2434938. DOI: 10.1155/2022/2434938.
[8]	Cho J, Min HY, Lee HJ, et al. RGS2-mediated translational control mediates cancer cell dormancy and tumor relapse[J]. J Clin Invest, 2021, 131(1): 136779. DOI: 10.1172/JCI136779.
[9]	Graziosi L, Marino E, Cavazzoni E, et al. Prognostic value of the seventh AJCC/UICC TNM classification of non-cardia gastric cancer[J]. World J Surg Oncol, 2013, 11(1): 103. DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-11-103.
[10]	Yang H, Zou X, Yang S, et al. Identification of lactylation related model to predict prognostic, tumor infiltrating immunocytes and response of immunotherapy in gastric cancer[J]. Front Immunol, 2023, 14(1): 114-124. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1149989.
[11]	Sornjai W, Nguyen Van Long F, Pion N, et al. Iron and hepcidin mediate human colorectal cancer cell growth[J]. Chem Biol Interact, 2020, 319: 109021. DOI: 10.1016/j.cbi.2020.109021.
[12]	Lin PC, Hsu WY, Lee PY, et al. Insights into hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with thalassemia: from pathophysiology to novel therapies[J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2023, 24(16): 12654. DOI: 10. 3390/ijms241612654.
[13]	Wang J, Liu W, Li JC, et al. Hepcidin downregulation correlates with disease aggressiveness and immune infiltration in liver cancers[J]. Front Oncol, 2021, 11(3): 714756. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.714756.
[14]	Jiang M, Hu R, Yu R, et al. A narrative review of mechanisms of ferroptosis in cancer: new challenges and opportunities[J]. Ann Transl Med, 2021, 9(20): 1599. DOI: 10.21037/atm-21-4863.
[15]	单湉湉, 程珍, 严敏, 等. 胃癌患者血清铁调素和促红细胞生成素表达特点及其与贫血的关系分析[J]. 检验医学与临床, 2022, 19(3): 330-332, 337. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-9455.2022.03.011.
[16]	Liu C, Lu Z, Yan J, et al. Construction of a prognostic signature associated with liver metastases for prognosis and immune response prediction in colorectal cancer[J]. Front Oncol, 2023, 13: 1234045. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1234045.
[17]	Zhu Y, Yang J, Xu D, et al. Disruption of tumour-associated macrophage trafficking by the osteopontin-induced colony-stimulating factor-1 signalling sensitises hepatocellular carcinoma to anti-PD-L1 blockade[J]. Gut, 2019, 68(9): 1653-1666. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318419. pmid: 30902885
[18]	Ma L, Dong L, Chang P. CD44v6 engages in colorectal cancer progression[J]. Cell Death Dis, 2019, 10(1): 30. DOI: 10.1038/s41419-018-1265-7.
[19]	Pang X, Gong K, Zhang X, et al. Osteopontin as a multifaceted driver of bone metastasis and drug resistance[J]. Pharmacol Res, 2019, 144: 235-244. DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2019.04.030. pmid: 31028902
[20]	Xu Q, Yao M, Tang C. RGS2 and female common diseases: a guard of women's health[J]. J Transl Med, 2023, 21(1): 583. DOI: 10.1186/s12967-023-04462-3.
[21]	Wang CJ, Chidiac P. RGS2 promotes the translation of stress-associated proteins ATF4 and CHOP via its eIF2B-inhibitory domain[J]. Cell Signal, 2019, 59: 163-170. DOI: 10.1016/j.cellsig.2019. 02.007.
[22]	Ihlow J, Monjé N, Hoffmann I, et al. Low expression of RGS2 promotes poor prognosis in high-grade serous ovarian cancer[J]. Cancers (Basel), 2022, 14(19): 4620. DOI: 10.3390/cancers 14194620.
[23]	Yang S, Sun B, Li W, et al. Fatty acid metabolism is related to the immune microenvironment changes of gastric cancer and RGS2 is a new tumor biomarker[J]. Front Immunol, 2022, 13: 1065927. DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1065927.

指标	AUC	95%CI	敏感性（%）	特异性（%）	最佳截断值
HAMP	0.777	0.683~0.872	77.86	68.68	55.38 ng/ml
SPP1	0.813	0.724~0.903	72.33	80.22	59.63 ng/ml
RGS2	0.778	0.686~0.870	70.39	70.28	3.31 mg/L
三者联合	0.871	0.801~0.942	98.52	65.12