Tumor Biology

, Volume 37, Issue 8, pp 10279–10286 | Cite as

Complete loss of STAG2 expression is an indicator of good prognosis in patients with bladder cancer

  • Yan Qiao
  • Xi Zhu
  • Aiwei Li
  • Shuo Yang
  • Jie Zhang
Original Article


Stromal antigen 2 (STAG2) is an important member of cohesin, a conserved complex holding the sister chromatid together. Recent whole-genome sequencing studies have identified that genetic alterations of stag2 are common in bladder cancer (BC). The prognostic implications of STAG2 expression in BC remain unclear; we therefore analyzed its associations with the histopathological characteristics and clinical outcome in a Chinese population. We used immunohistochemistry assay to determine STAG2 protein expression in tumor tissues from 125 BC patients. STAG2 expression was analyzed according to clinicopathological features and patients’ survival. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS). STAG2 expression was detected in 79.2 % of BC tissues, and 20.8 % of the tumor tissues had a complete loss of STAG2 protein expression. This STAG2-negative result was associated with a lower tumor histological grade with P = 0.009. The log-rank analysis revealed that the complete loss of STAG2 expression was associated with a lower risk of recurrence (P = 0.023) and a diminished risk of death (P = 0.034), especially in the subgroup of muscle-invasive BC (P = 0.043 for RFS and P = 0.087 for CSS). In multivariable Cox regression models, the loss of STAG2 expression remained a beneficial factor for RFS and CSS of BC patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses’ results indicated that the complete loss of STAG2 expression was predictive for better RFS and CSS, suggesting its potential value as a prognostic biomarker.


Bladder cancer Prognosis Stromal antigen Cohesin 



This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (nos. 61401290)

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest



  1. 1.
    Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, JemalLaa A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen W, Zheng R, Zeng H, Zhang S, He J. Annual report on status of cancer in China, 2011. Chin J Cancer Res. 2015;27:2–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sanchez-Carbavo M, Socci ND, Lozano J, Saint F, Cordon-Cardo C. Defining molecular profiles of poor outcome in patients with invasive bladder cancer using oligonucleotide microarrays. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:778–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clark PE, Agarwal N, Biagioli MC, Eisenberger MA, Greenberg RE, Herr HW, et al. Bladder cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2013;11:446–75.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Rhijn BW, Burger M, Lotan Y, Solsona E, Stief CG, Sylvester RJ, et al. Recurrence and progression of disease in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: from epidemiology to treatment strategy. Eur Urol. 2009;56:430–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeSantis CE, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, Siegel RL, Stein KD, Kramer JL, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;6:252–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sylvester RJ, van der Meijden AP, Oosterlinck W, Witjes JA, Bouffioux C, Denis L, et al. Predicting recurrence and progression in individual patients with stage Ta T1 bladder cancer using EORTC risk tables: a combined analysis of 2596 patients from seven EORTC trials. Eur Urol. 2006;49:475–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kluth LA, Black PC, Bochner BH, Catto J, Lerner SP, Stenzl A, et al. Prognostic and prediction tools in bladder cancer: a comprehensive review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2015;68:238–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Rhijn BW, Catto JW, Goebell PJ, Knuchel R, Shariat SF, van der Poel HG, et al. Molecular markers for urothelial bladder cancer prognosis: toward implementation in clinical practice. Urol Oncol. 2014;32:1078–87.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Balbas-Martinez C, Saqrera A, Carrillo-de-Santa-Pau E, Earl J, Marquez M, Vazquez M, et al. Recurrent inactivation of STAG2 in bladder cancer is not associated with aneuploidy. Nat Genet. 2013;45:1464–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guo G, Sun X, Chen C, Wu S, Huang P, Li Z, et al. Whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing of bladder cancer identifies frequent alterations in genes involved in sister chromatid cohesion and segregation. Nat Genet. 2015;45:1459–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Losada A. Cohesin in cancer: chromosome segregation and beyond. Nat Rev Cancer. 2014;14:389–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Canudas S, Smith S. Differential regulation of telomere and centromere cohesion by the Scc3 homologues SA1 and SA2, respectively, in human cells. J Cell Biol. 2009;187:165–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hauf S, Roitinger E, Koch B, Dittrich CM, Mechtler K, Peters JM. Dissociation of cohesin from chromosome arms and loss of arm cohesion during early mitosis depends on phosphorylation of SA2. PLoS Biol. 2005;3:e69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Xiao T, Wallace J, Felsenfeld G. Specific sites in the C terminus of CTCF interact with the SA2 subunit of the cohesin complex and are required for cohesin-dependent insulation activity. Mol Cell Biol. 2011;31:2174–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Solomon DA, Kim JS, Bondaruk J, Shariat SF, Wang ZF, Elkahloun AG, et al. Frequent truncating mutations of STAG2 in bladder cancer. Nat Genet. 2013;45:1428–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Evers L, Perez-Mancera PA, Lenkiewicz E, Tang N, Aust D, Knosel T, et al. STAG2 is a clinically relevant tumor suppressor in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Genome Med. 2014;6:9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brohl AS, Solomon DA, Chang W, Wang J, Song Y, Sindiri S, et al. The genomic landscape of the Ewing Sarcoma family of tumors reveals recurrent STAG2 mutation. PLoS Genet. 2014;10:e1004475.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taylor CF, Platt FM, Hurst CD, Thygesen HH, Knowles MA. Frequent inactivating mutations of STAG2 in bladder cancer are associated with low tumour grade and stage and inversely related to chromosomal copy number changes. Hum Mol Genet. 2014;23:1964–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Solomon DA, Kim T, Diaz-Martinez LA, Fair J, Elkahloun AG, Harris BT, et al. Mutational inactivation of STAG2 causes aneuploidy in human cancer. Science. 2011;333:1039–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kleyman M, Kabeche L, Compton DA. STAG2 promotes error correction in mitosis by regulating kinetochore-microtubule attachments. J Cell Sci. 2014;127:4225–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lara-Pezzi E, Pezzi N, Prieto I, Barthelemy I, Carreiro C, Martinez A, et al. Evidence of a transcriptional co-activator function of cohesion STAG/SA/Scc3. J Biol Chem. 2004;279:6553–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yan Qiao
    • 1
  • Xi Zhu
    • 2
  • Aiwei Li
    • 1
  • Shuo Yang
    • 1
  • Jie Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Laboratory MedicinePeking University Third HospitalBeijingChina
  2. 2.Department of UrologyBeijing Friendship Hospital Affiliated with Capital Medical UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations