High expression of LUM independently predicts poor prognosis in gastric cancer: a bioinformatics study combining TCGA and GEO datasets

Figures & data

Figure 1. LUM differential expression in normal and tumor tissues. A: comparison of TCGA profile; B: comparison of GEO dataset

Figure 2. Validation of protein expression of LUM in normal tissue (A) and gastric cancer (B) using the Human Protein Atlas database.

Figure 3. Association of LUM expression with clinical variates. A: age; B: gender; C: grade; D: distant metastasis; E: lymph node metastasis; F: clinical stage; G: depth of invasion

Table 1. Logistic regression between LUM expression and clinicopathologic parameters.

Odds ratio for
Parameters	Total (N)	LUM expression	95%CI	P-value
Age (≥65 vs <65)	371	0.848	0.561–1.282	0.435
Gender (male vs female)	375	0.992	0.650–1.514	0.929
Distant metastasis (M1 vs M0)	355	0.923	0.404–2.094	0.847
N classification (N0+N1+N2 vs N0)	357	0.870	0.555–1.363	0.544
Grade classification (G2 vs G1)	146	0.756	0.202–2.835	0.670
(G3 vs G1)	228	1.190	0.323–4.391	0.788
Clinical stage (II vs I)	164	3.149	1.591–6.452	0.001*
(III vs I)	203	2.505	1.303–4.992	0.007*
(IV vs I)	91	2.081	0.880–5.008	0.097*
T classification (T2 vs T1)	100	13.304	2.551–245.163	0.013*
(T3 vs T1)	188	18.434	3.677–335.410	0.005*
(T4 vs T1)	120	30.649	5.953–562.687	0.001*

*indicates P < 0.05.

Figure 4. Receiver operating characteristic curve for LUM expression in normal and gastric cancer tissues.

Figure 5. LUM expression and overall survival in gastric cancer patients in TCGA profile (A) and the GSE84437 dataset (B).

Table 2. Univariate and multivariate analysis of the correlation between LUM expression and overall survival in gastric cancer patients.

	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
parameter	HR	95%CI	P-value	HR	95%CI	P-value
Age	1.027	1.008–1.046	0.00556*	1.040	1.017–1.059	<0.001*
Gender	1.484	0.980–2.247	0.06239	1.450	0.928–2.184	0.0884
Grade	1.368	0.947–1.977	0.09538	1.416	0.929–2.010	0.0752
Stage	1.535	1.221–1.931	0.00024*	1.351	0.871–2.089	0.1786
T	1.298	1.023–1.645	0.03152*	1.080	0.756–1.449	0.6395
M	2.048	1.096–3.827	0.02458*	2.024	0.891–1.445	0.0867
N	1.267	1.069–1.502	0.00639*	1.078	0.847–1.388	0.5509
LUM	1.001	1.000–.003	0.02412*	1.001	1.011–1.400	0.0243*

*indicates P < 0.05.

Table 3. Univariate and multivariate analysis of the correlation between LUM expression and overall survival in gastric cancer patients validated using the GSE8443 dataset.

	Univariate analysis			Multivariate analysis
parameter	HR	95%CI	P-value	HR	95%CI	P-value
Age	1.027	1.008–1.046	0.00556*	1.038	1.017–1.059	0.0002*
Gender	1.484	0.980–2.247	0.06239	1.424	0.928–2.184	0.1058
Stage	1.535	1.221–1.931	0.00024*	1.349	0.871–2.089	0.1793
LUM	1.001	1.000–1.003	0.02412*	1.189	1.011–1.400	0.0367*

*indicates P < 0.05.

Figure 6. Significantly enriched signaling pathways of GSEA. Genes involved in extracellular matrix-receptor interaction (A), focal adhesion (B), cancer (C), chemokine signaling (D), Toll-like receptor signaling (E) and WNT signaling (F) were significantly enriched in LUM-related gastric cancer.