Indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase 1/cyclooxygenase 2 expression prediction for adverse prognosis in colorectal cancer

doi:10.3748/wjg.v24.i20.2181

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 24, Issue 20

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Supplementary Materials of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (8304)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-3) series, Tables (1-6) series.

Item

Count

PDF

442

WORD

326

HTML

3956

Figures (1-3)

447

Tables (1-6)

431

Sum=5602

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

1065

Download

1637

Sum=2702

May 28, 2018 (publication date) through Apr 24, 2025

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (15)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Retrospective Study

World J Gastroenterol. May 28, 2018; 24(20): 2181-2190
Published online May 28, 2018. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i20.2181

Table 1 Correlation of cytoplasmic indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase 1 expression with colorectal cancer clinicopathologic parameters

Characteristic	Total	Low IDO1	High IDO1	P-value
Sex				0.074
Male	52	22 (42.3)	30 (57.7)
Female	43	27 (62.8)	16 (37.2)
Age in yr				0.65
≥ 60	30	17 (56.7)	13 (43.3)
< 60	65	32 (49.2)	33 (50.8)
Cancers				0.93
Colon	46	24 (52.2)	22 (47.8)
Rectum	49	25 (51.0)	24 (49.0)
BMI				0.16
≥ 25	20	7 (35.0)	13 (65.0)
< 25	75	42 (56.0)	33 (44.0)
Tumor differentiation				0.47
Moderate and poor	78	42 (54.5)	35 (45.5)
Well	17	7 (41.2)	10 (58.8)
Colon cancer stage				0.52
3	20	12 (60.0)	8 (40.0)
2	26	12 (46.2)	14 (53.8)
T stage				0.69
4	29	14 (48.3)	15 (51.7)
2/3	17	10 (58.8)	7 (41.2)
N stage				0.96
1/2	20	11 (55.0)	9 (45.0)
0	26	13 (50.0)	13 (50.0)
Rectum cancer stage				0.67
3	24	11(45.8)	13 (54.2)
2	25	14 (46.0)	11 (44.0)
T stage				0.68
4	22	12 (55.6)	10 (45.4)
2/3	27	12 (44.4)	15 (55.6)
N stage				0.88
1/2	24	12 (50.0)	12 (50.0)
0	25	13 (52.0)	12 (48.0)
CEA in ng/mL				0.45
> 5	42	24 (57.1)	18 (42.9)
≤ 5	53	25 (47.2)	28 (42.8)
CA19-9 in U/mL				0.22
> 37	17	6 (35.3)	11 (64.7)
≤ 37	78	43 (55.1)	35 (44.9)
CD3 TILs				0.27
High	36	22 (61.1)	14 (38.9)
Low	59	28 (47.5)	31 (42.5)
CD8 TILs				0.96
High	22	12 (54.5)	10 (45.5)
Low	73	38 (52.5)	35 (47.5)
COX2				0.92
High	48	26 (54.2)	22 (45.8)
Low	47	24 (51.1)	23 (48.9)
Treatment group				0.58
Celecoxib	44	25 (56.8)	19 (43.2)
Non-celecoxib	51	25 (49.0)	26 (51.0)

Data are presented as n or n (%). BMI: Body mass index; CA: Cancer antigen; CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; COX2: Cyclooxygenase 2; CRC: Colorectal cancer; IDO1: Indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase 1; TILs: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.

Table 2 Correlation of nuclear indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase 1 expression with colorectal cancer clinicopathologic parameters

Characteristic	Total	Low IDO1	High IDO1	P-value
Sex				0.70
Male	51	39 (76.5)	12 (33.5)
Female	44	36 (81.8)	8 (19.2)
Age in yr				0.92
> 60	30	24 (80.0)	6 (20.0)
≤ 60	65	51 (78.5)	14 (21.5)
Cancers				0.52
Colon	46	38 (82.6)	18 (17.4)
Rectum	49	37 (75.5)	12 (24.5)
BMI				< 0.001
> 25	20	9 (45.0)	11 (55.0)
≤ 25	75	66 (88.0)	9 (12.0)
Tumor differentiation				0.87
Moderate and poor	78	60 (76.9)	18 (23.1)
Well	17	14 (82.3)	3 (17.7)
Conlon cancer stage				0.98
3	20	17 (85.0)	3 (15.0)
2	26	21 (80.8)	5 (19.2)
T stage				0.71
4	29	23 (19.3)	6 (20.7)
2/3	17	15 (88.2.)	2 (11.8)
N stage				0.98
1/2	20	16 (80.0)	4 (20.0)
0	26	22 (84.6)	4 (15.4)
Rectum cancer stage				0.44
3	24	17 (70.8)	7 (29.2)
2	25	21 (84.0)	4 (16.0)
T stage				0.94
4	22	16 (72.7)	6 (27.3)
2/3	27	21 (77.8)	6 (22.2)
N stage				0.28
1/2	24	16 (66.7)	8 (33.3)
0	25	21(84.0)	4 (16.0)
CEA in ng/mL				0.37
> 5	42	35 (83.3)	7 (16.7)
≤ 5	53	39 (73.6)	14 (26.4)
CA19-9 in U/mL				0.78
> 37	81	41 (50.6)	40 (49.4)
≤ 37	17	8 (47.1)	9 (52.9)
CD3 TILs				0.96
High	36	28 (77.8)	8 (22.2)
Low	59	47 (79.7)	12 (20.3)
CD8 TILs				0.26
High	22	15 (68.2)	7 (31.8)
Low	73	60 (82.2)	13 (17.8)
COX2				0.84
High	48	38 (79.2)	10 (20.8)
Low	47	37 (78.7)	10 (21.3)
Treatment group				0.16
Celecoxib	44	38 (86.4)	6 (13.6)
Non-celecoxib	51	37 (72.5)	14 (27.5)

Table 3 Univariate analysis of the correlation of clinicopathological parameters with overall survival in patients with colorectal carcinoma

	HR	95%CI	P value
Sex, male vs female	0.750	0.399-1.411	0.37
Age in yr, ≤ 60 vs > 60	0.899	0.472-1.714	0.74
Cancer, colon vs rectum	1.279	0.712-2.296	0.41
BMI, > 25 vs ≤ 25	1.579	0.697-3.579	0.21
Tumor differentiation, moderate and poor vs well	2.798	1.373-5.702	0.039
Stage, 3 vs 2	1.003	0.534-1.882	0.99
T stage, T4 vs T2/3	1.418	0.755-2.664	0.27
N stage, N1/2 vs N0	1.005	0.536-1.887	0.99
CEA in ng/mL, > 5 vs ≤ 5	2.137	1.141-4.004	0.025
CA19-9 in U/mL, > 37 vs ≤ 37	1.262	0.547-2.911	0.56
CD3 TILs, high vs low	1.195	0.649-2.198	0.55
CD8 TILs, high vs low	2.096	0.975-4.504	0.018
Nuclear IDO1, high vs low	2.044	0.871-4.798	0.039
Cytoplasmic IDO1, high vs low	1.690	0.901-3.173	0.10
Nuclear and cytoplasmic IDO1, high vs low	2.044	0.871-4.798	0.039
COX2, high vs low	1.235	0.659-2.314	0.51
Nuclear IDO1/COX2, IV vs I/II/III	3.048	0.868-10.7	0.0049
Cytoplasmic IDO1/COX2, IV vs I/II/III	2.109	0.976-4.558	0.022
Treatment group, celecoxib vs non-celecoxib	0.943	0.489-1.826	0.86

BMI: Body mass index; CA: Cancer antigen; CEA: Carcinoembryonic antigen; CI: Confidence interval; COX2: Cyclooxygenase 2; CRC: Colorectal carcinoma; HR: Hazard ratio; IDO1: Indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase 1; TILs: Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes.

Table 4 Multivariate analysis of the correlation of indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase 1 with overall survival in patients with Colorectal cancer

	HR	95%CI	P-value
Cytoplasmic IDO1 and COX2, IV vs I/II/III	2.218	1.011-4.48	0.047
Tumor differentiation, poor and moderate vs well	3.473	1.201-10.046	0.022

CI: Confidence interval; COX2: Cyclooxygenase 2; HR: Hazard ratio; IDO1: Indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase 1.

Table 5 Univariate analysis of the correlation of clinicopathological parameters with overall survival in CRC celecoxib subgroup

	HR	95%CI	P value
Sex, male vs female	0.854	0.329-2.219	0.74
Age in yr, ≤ 60 vs > 60	1.249	0.432-3.609	0.70
Cancer, colon vs rectum	1.034	0.420-2.543	0.94
BMI, > 25 vs ≤ 25	1.328	0.351-5.020	0.71
Tumor differentiation, moderate and poor vs well	7.396	2.749-19.90	0.021
Stage, 3 vs 2	1.075	0.415-2.782	0.88
T stage, T4 vs T2/3	1.389	0.537-3.596	0.50
N stage, N1/2 vs N0	1.075	0.415-2.782	0.88
CEA in ng/mL, > 5 vs ≤ 5	1.934	0.743-5.033	0.21
CA19-9 in m/L, > 37 vs ≤ 37	1.551	0.431-5.575	0.43
CD3 TILs, high vs low	1.02	0.414-2.510	0.97
CD8 TILs, high vs low	2.821	0.774-10.29	0.026
Nuclear IDO1, high vs low	3.023	0.585-15.61	0.041
Cytoplasmic IDO1, high vs low	1.623	0.617-4.267	0.31
Nuclear and cytoplasmic IDO1, high vs low	3.023	0.585-15.61	0.041
COX2, high vs low	1.746	0.672-4.541	0.25
Nuclear IDO1/COX2, IV vs I/II/III	1.885	0.279-12.76	0.38
Cytoplasmic IDO1/COX2, IV vs I/II/III	2.740	0.764-9.831	0.038

Table 6 Multivariate analysis of the correlation of indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase 1 with overall survival in Colorectal cancer celecoxib subgroup

	HR	95%CI	P-value
Cytoplasmic IDO1 and COX2, IV vs I/II/III	3.210	1.074-9.590	0.037
Tumor differentiation, poor and moderate vs well	11.962	1.526-23.787	0.018

CI: Confidence interval; COX2: Cyclooxygenase 2; HR: Hazard ratio; IDO1: Indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase 1.

Citation: Ma WJ, Wang X, Yan WT, Zhou ZG, Pan ZZ, Chen G, Zhang RX. Indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase 1/cyclooxygenase 2 expression prediction for adverse prognosis in colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2018; 24(20): 2181-2190
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v24/i20/2181.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v24.i20.2181