A bioinformatics analysis of the clinicopathological and prognostic significance of FAM64A mRNA expression in gynecological cancers

Figures & data

Figure 1. The clinicopathological and prognostic significance of FAM64A mRNA expression in breast cancer. According to xiantao (A), UALCAN (B), GEO (C), and TCGA (D) databases, FAM64A overexpression was detectable in breast cancer when compared with normal breast tissue (p < 0.05). FAM64A expression was compared with breast cancer clinicopathological characteristics in UALCAN (E). In the Kaplan-Meier plotter (F), relationships between FAM64A expression and breast cancer patients were analysed and stratified by clinicopathological features. Note: N, normal tissue; T, tumour; HR, hazard ratio; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

Table 1. Relationships between FAM64A mRNA expression and breast cancer clinicopathological characteristics using the xiantao database.

Characteristics	Group	Low expression	High expression	p value
Age (years), n (%)	≤60	296 (27.3%)	305 (28.2%)	0.649
	>60	245 (22.6%)	237 (21.9%)
Race, n (%)	Asian	29 (2.9%)	31 (3.1%)	<0.001
	Black or African American	125 (12.6%)	56 (5.6%)
	White	347 (34.9%)	406 (40.8%)
T stage, n (%)	T1	126 (11.7%)	151 (14%)	0.042
	T2	317 (29.4%)	312 (28.9%)
	T3	82 (7.6%)	57 (5.3%)
	T4	14 (1.3%)	21 (1.9%)
N stage, n (%)	N0	263 (24.7%)	251 (23.6%)	0.204
	N1	177 (16.6%)	181 (17%)
	N2	48 (4.5%)	68 (6.4%)
	N3	42 (3.9%)	34 (3.2%)
M stage, n (%)	M0	425 (46.1%)	477 (51.7%)	0.360
	M1	12 (1.3%)	8 (0.9%)
Pathologic stage, n (%)	Stage I	87 (8.2%)	94 (8.9%)	0.862
	Stage II	316 (29.8%)	303 (28.6%)
	Stage III	120 (11.3%)	122 (11.5%)
	Stage IV	10 (0.9%)	8 (0.8%)
Histological type, n (%)	IDC	356 (36.4%)	416 (42.6%)	<0.001
	ILC	130 (13.3%)	75 (7.7%)
PAM50, n (%)	Normal	13 (1.2%)	27 (2.5%)	0.025
	Lum A	284 (26.2%)	278 (25.7%)
	Lum B	115 (10.6%)	89 (8.2%)
	Her2	43 (4%)	39 (3.6%)
	Basal	86 (7.9%)	109 (10.1%)
OS event, n (%)	Alive	483 (44.6%)	448 (41.4%)	0.002
	Dead	58 (5.4%)	94 (8.7%)
DSS event, n (%)	Alive	505 (47.5%)	473 (44.5%)	0.010
	Dead	31 (2.9%)	54 (5.1%)

IDC: infiltrating ductal carcinoma; ILC: infiltrating lobular carcinoma; OS: overall survival; DSS: disease-specific survival.

Table 2. Overall survival analysis in breast cancer patients using the xiantao database.

Characteristics	N	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis
		Hazard ratio (95% CI)	p value	Hazard ratio (95% CI)	p value
Age (≤60 vs >60 years)	1082	2.020 (1.465-2.784)	<0.001	3.010 (1.557-5.821)	0.001
T stage (T1-2 vs T3-4)	1079	1.608 (1.110-2.329)	0.012	3.075 (1.575-6.001)	<0.001
N stage (N0 vs N1-3)	1063	2.239 (1.567-3.199)	<0.001	1.789 (1.005-3.186)	0.048
M stage (M0 vs M1)	922	4.254 (2.468-7.334)	<0.001	4.243 (1.328-13.556)	0.015
PR status (– vs +)	1029	0.733 (0.525-1.025)	0.070	1.059 (0.458-2.449)	0.894
ER status (– vs +)	1032	0.725 (0.505-1.041)	0.082	0.329 (0.135-0.804)	0.015
Her2 status (– vs +)	715	1.519 (0.927-2.488)	0.097	0.834 (0.421-1.655)	0.604
Menopause status (Pre&Peri vs post)	971	2.348 (1.428-3.860)	<0.001	2.228 (0.953-5.209)	0.065
Histological type (ILC vs IDC)	977	1.209 (0.770-1.900)	0.410
FAM64A expression (Low vs high)	1082	1.757 (1.263-2.446)	<0.001	2.369 (1.308-4.291)	0.004

ILC: infiltrating lobular carcinoma; IDC: infiltrating ductal carcinoma; CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio; ER: oestrogen receptor; PR: progesterone receptor.

Table 3. Disease-specific survival analysis of breast cancer patients using the xiantao database.

Characteristics	N	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis
		Hazard ratio (95% CI)	p value	Hazard ratio (95% CI)	p value
Age (≤60 vs >60 years)	1062	1.445 (0.941–2.219)	0.093	1.681 (0.961–2.943)	0.069
T stage (T1-2 vs T3-4)	1059	1.902 (1.174–3.081)	0.009	1.107 (0.566–2.163)	0.767
N stage (N0 vs N1-3)	1044	3.797 (2.222–6.489)	<0.001	2.971 (1.568–5.627)	<0.001
M stage (M0 vs M1)	903	7.454 (3.988–13.931)	<0.001	3.640 (1.656–8.001)	0.001
PR status (– vs +)	1014	0.527 (0.340–0.818)	0.004	0.824 (0.344–1.973)	0.664
ER status (– vs +)	1015	0.569 (0.357–0.906)	0.017	0.502 (0.205–1.225)	0.130
Her2 status (– vs +)	716	1.400 (0.701–2.796)	0.340
Menopause status (Pre&Peri vs post)	961	1.560 (0.871–2.794)	0.135
Histological type (ILC vs IDC)	958	2.125 (1.018–4.434)	0.045	1.483 (0.566–3.884)	0.423
FAM64A expression (Low vs high)	1062	1.885 (1.209–2.940)	0.005	2.208 (1.258–3.873)	0.006

ILC: infiltrating lobular carcinoma; IDC: infiltrating ductal carcinoma; CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio; ER: oestrogen receptor; PR: progesterone receptor.

Figure 2. The clinicopathological and prognostic significance of FAM64A mRNA expression in cervical cancer. According to xiantao (A), UALCAN (B), TCGA (C), and GEO (D) databases, FAM64A hyperexpression was detectable in cervical cancer when compared with normal cervical tissue (p < 0.05). In the Kaplan-Meier plotter (E), relationships between FAM64A expression and cervical cancer patient survival data were analysed and stratified by clinicopathological features. Note: N, normal tissue; T, tumour; HR, hazard ratio; ***p < 0.001.

Figure 3. The clinicopathological and prognostic significance of FAM64A mRNA expression in endometrial cancer. According to xiantao (A), UALCAN (B), and TCGA (C) databases, FAM64A hyperexpression was detectable in endometrial cancer when compared with normal endometrial tissue (p < 0.05). FAM64A expression was compared with endometrial cancer clinicopathological characteristics in UALCAN (D). In the Kaplan-Meier plotter (E), relationships between FAM64A expression and endometrial cancer patient survival data were analysed and stratified by clinicopathological features. Note: N, normal tissue; T, tumour; HR, hazard ratio; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.

Data availability statement

The datasets in this study can be found in online repositories. The names and accession numbers of the repository/repositories can be found in the article/Supplementary Materials.