Tumor Biology

, Volume 37, Issue 11, pp 15193–15201 | Cite as

High mucin-7 expression is an independent predictor of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma

  • SonTung NguyenHoang
  • Yidong Liu
  • Le Xu
  • Yuan Chang
  • Lin Zhou
  • Zheng Liu
  • Zongming Lin
  • Jiejie Xu
Original Article


Mucin-7 is a member of the secreted mucins family. Mucins might play a crucial role during tumor development and its aberrant expression was observed in several types of tumor. Our study aims to evaluate the prognostic significance of Mucin-7 expression in postoperative clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) patients. In this retrospective study, we enrolled 392 patients with ccRCC undergoing nephrectomy between 2008 and 2009 in a single center. The median follow-up was 73 months (range 39–74 months). Mucin-7 expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry protocol on ccRCC specimens. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was conducted to compare survival curves. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models were applied to assess the impact of prognostic factors in overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). A nomogram was then constructed based on the independent prognosticators identified on multivariate analysis. The results displayed that Mucin-7 expression was significantly associated with tumor size (p = 0.034), pT stage (p = 0.004), TNM stage (p = 0.008), and necrosis (p = 0.043). Patients with high Mucin-7 expression had significant worse outcomes in both OS (p < 0.001) and RFS (p < 0.001) compared to those with low Mucin-7 expression. MUC7 expression was considered as an independent predictive factor for OS (HR 2.286; 95 %CI 1.167–4.475; p = 0.016) and RFS (HR 2.055; 95 %CI 1.086–3.887; p = 0.027). A nomogram integrating Mucin-7 expression and other independent prognosticators was constructed. In summary, the high Mucin-7 expression is a potential prognosticator of adverse clinical outcome in ccRCC patients after surgery.


Clear-cell renal cell carcinoma Mucin-7 Overall survival Recurrence-free survival Prognostic biomarker 



This study was funded by grants from National Key Projects for Infectious Diseases of China (2012ZX10002012-007, 2016ZX10002018-008), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31100629, 31270863, 81372755, 31470794, 81401988, 81402082, 81402085, 81471621, 81472227, 81472376, 31570803, 81501999, and 81572352), and Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University (NCET-13-0146). All these study sponsors have no roles in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data.

Author contributions

Sontung and Nguyenhoang were responsible for the acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, statistical analysis, and drafting of the manuscript; D. Liu, L. Xu, Y. Chang, L. Zhou, and Z. Liu were responsible for the technical and material support; J. Xu and Z. Lin were responsible for the study concept and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, obtaining of funding, and study supervision. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

All study protocols were permitted by the Clinical Research Medical Ethics Committee of Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University (Shanghai, China) and were carried out in accordance with the approved guidelines.

Conflicts of interest


Supplementary material

13277_2016_5375_MOESM1_ESM.doc (54 kb)
Table S1 (DOC 53 kb)
13277_2016_5375_Fig6_ESM.gif (53 kb)
Figure S1

Kaplan–Meier analysis of overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) according to the difference Fuhrman grade in patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Kaplan–Meier analysis of (A-D) OS and (E-H) RFS. P value was calculated by log-rank test. (GIF 52 kb)

13277_2016_5375_MOESM2_ESM.tif (10.6 mb)
High Resolution (TIFF 10865 kb)
13277_2016_5375_Fig7_ESM.gif (51 kb)
Figure S2

Kaplan–Meier analysis of overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) according to the difference TNM stage in patients with clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Kaplan–Meier analysis of (A-D) OS and (E-H) RFS. P value was calculated by log-rank test. (GIF 50 kb)

13277_2016_5375_MOESM3_ESM.tif (10.9 mb)
High Resolution (TIFF 11173 kb)


  1. 1.
    Brian I, Rini SCC, Escudier B. Renal cell carcinoma. Lancet. 2009;373:1119–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Petejova N, Martinek A. Renal cell carcinoma: review of etiology, pathophysiology and risk factors. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2015;159:1–12.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leibovich BC, Blute ML, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Frank I, Kwon ED, et al. Prediction of progression after radical nephrectomy for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a stratification tool for prospective clinical trials. Cancer. 2003;97(7):1663–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Weaver AL, Zincke H. An outcome prediction model for patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma treated with radical nephrectomy based on tumor stage, size, grade and necrosis: the SSIGN score. J Urology. 2002;168(6):2395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ficarra V, Martignoni G, Lohse C, Novara G, Pea M, Cavalleri S, et al. External validation of the Mayo Clinic stage, size, grade and necrosis (SSIGN) score to predict cancer specific survival using a European series of conventional renal cell carcinoma. J Urology. 2006;175(4):1235–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patard JJ. Use of the University of California Los Angeles Integrated Staging System to predict survival in renal cell carcinoma: an international multicenter study. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(16):3316–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pichler M, Hutterer GC, Chromecki TF, Jesche J, Groselj-Strele A, Kampel-Kettner K, et al. Prognostic value of the Leibovich prognosis score supplemented by vascular invasion for clear cell renal cell carcinoma. J Urology. 2012;187(3):834–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cairns P. Renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Biomark. 2010;9(1–6):461–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gatto F, Nookaew I, Nielsen J. Chromosome 3p loss of heterozygosity is associated with a unique metabolic network in clear cell renal carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(9):E866–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chugh S, Gnanapragassam VS, Jain M, Rachagani S, Ponnusamy MP, Batra SK. Pathobiological implications of mucin glycans in cancer: sweet poison and novel targets. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2015;1856(2):211–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kufe DW. Mucins in cancer: function, prognosis and therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9(12):874–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Felder M, Kapur A, Gonzalez-Bosquet J, Horibata S, Heintz J, Albrecht R, Fass L, Kaur J, Hu K, Shojaei H, Whelan RJ, Patankar MS. MUC16 (CA125): tumor biomarker to cancer therapy, a work in progress. Mol Cancer. 2014;13(129).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Safi F, Schlosser W, Kolb G, Beger HG. Diagnostic value of CA 19-9 in patients with pancreatic cancer and nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms. Gastrointestine Surgery. 1997;1(2):1–7.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Soletormos G, Nielsen D, Schioler V, Mouridsen H, Dombernowsky P. Monitoring different stages of breast cancer using tumour markers CA 15-3, CEA and TPA. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(4):481–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frenkel ES, Ribbeck K. Salivary mucins in host defense and disease prevention. J Oral Microbiol. 2015;7:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Retz M, Lehmann J, Amann E, Wullich B, Roder C, Stockle M. Mucin 7 and cytokeratin 20 as new diagnostic urinary markers for bladder tumor. J Urology. 2003;169(1):86–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Retz M, Lehmann J, Szysnik C, Zwank S, Venzke T, Roder C, et al. Detection of occult tumor cells in lymph nodes from bladder cancer patients by MUC7 nested RT-PCR. Eur Urol. 2004;45(3):314–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Edge SB, Compton C. The American joint committee on cancer: the 7th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual and the future of TNM. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(6):1471–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xu L, Zhu Y, Chen L, An H, Zhang W, Wang G, et al. Prognostic value of diametrically polarized tumor-associated macrophages in renal cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21(9):3142–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Camp RL, Dolled-Filhart M, Rimm DL. X-tile: a new bio-informatics tool for biomarker assessment and outcome-based cut-point optimization. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:7252–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hollingsworth MA, Swanson BJ. Mucins in cancer: protection and control of the cell surface. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(1):45–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leroy X, Copin M-C, Devisme L, Buisine M-P, Aubert J-P, Gosselin B, Porchet N. Expression of human mucin genes in normal kidney and renal cell carcinoma. Histopathology. 2002;40:450–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim YJ, Borsig L, Han H-L, Varki NM, Varki A. Distinct Selectin ligands on Colon carcinoma mucins can mediate pathological interactions among platelets, leukocytes, and endothelium. Am J Pathol. 1999;155(2):461–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • SonTung NguyenHoang
    • 1
  • Yidong Liu
    • 2
  • Le Xu
    • 3
  • Yuan Chang
    • 1
  • Lin Zhou
    • 1
  • Zheng Liu
    • 2
  • Zongming Lin
    • 1
  • Jiejie Xu
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Zhongshan HospitalFudan UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, School of Basic Medical SciencesFudan UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Department of Urology, Ruijin Hospital, School of MedicineShanghai Jiaotong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations