Expression and significance of RRBP1 in esophageal carcinoma

Figures & data

Figure 1 RRBP1 expression.

Notes: The expression of RRBP was detected in esophageal carcinoma and matched adjacent normal tissues by qRT-PCR (A) and Western blot (B). T, esophageal carcinoma tissue; N, matched adjacent normal esophageal tissue.

Table 1 RRBP1 expression in esophageal carcinoma and normal esophageal tissues by immunohistochemical staining

Types	N	RRBP1		P-value
		Low-expression (%)	High-expression (%)
Esophageal carcinoma tissues	120	49 (40.8)	71 (59.2)	0.000
Normal esophageal tissues	120	106 (88.3)	14 (11.7)

Table 2 RRBP1 expression correlation with clinicopathological characteristics in esophageal carcinoma

Clinicopathological characteristics	N	RRBP1		P-value
		Low-expression	High-expression
Age (years)
≤58	58	27	31	0.266
>58	62	22	40
Gender
Male	57	24	33	0.714
Female	63	25	38
History of smoking
Negative	55	20	35	0.853
Positive	65	29	36
Tumor location
Upper esophagus	56	27	29	0.14
Middle-lower esophagus	64	22	42
T stage
T1–T2	37	30	7	0.000
T3–T4	83	19	64
Lymph node metastasis
Negative	83	42	41	0.001
Positive	37	7	30
TNM stages
I–II	37	30	7	0.000
III–IV	83	19	64

Figure 2 RRBP1 expression was detected in esophageal carcinoma and matched adjacent normal tissues by immunohistochemical staining.

Notes: (A) Adjacent normal tissues; (B) weak staining of RRBP1 in esophageal carcinoma; (C) moderate staining of RRBP1 in esophageal carcinoma; (D) strong staining of RRBP1 in esophageal carcinoma.

Table 3 Patient survival: Kaplan–Meier survival analysis

Variables	N	Survival time (months, 95% CI)	P-value
RRBP1
Low-expression	49	56 (51–60)	0.006
High-expression	71	43 (39–48)
Gender
Male	57	51 (47–56)	0.323
Female	63	47 (42–52)
Age (years)
≤58	58	50 (45–55)	0.963
>58	62	50 (45–54)
History of smoking
Negative	55	49 (44–55)	0.845
Positive	65	50 (45–54)
Tumor location
Upper esophagus	56	50 (45–53)	0.213
Middle-lower esophagus	64	49 (45–54)
T stage
T1–T2	37	58 (53–62)	0.001
T3–T4	83	43 (39–48)
Lymph node metastasis
Negative	83	55 (51–59)	0.000
Positive	37	36 (31–41)
TNM stages
I–II	37	58 (53–62)	0.033
III–IV	83	43 (39–46)

Table 4 Patients’ survival evaluation by multivariate Cox regression analysis

Variables	Hazard ratio	95% CI	P-value
RRBP1 (high-expression vs low-expression)	2.441	1.267–4.702	0.008
Gender (male vs female)	1.329	0.736–2.400	0.346
Age (≤58 vs >58 years)	0.994	0.516–1.916	0.987
History of smoking (positive vs negative)	0.963	0.498–1.862	0.912
Tumor location (upper vs middle-lower)	0.929	0.538–1.629	0.921
T stage (T3–T4 vs T1–T2)	3.054	1.453–6.421	0.003
Lymph node metastasis (positive vs negative)	4.024	2.180–7.424	0.000
TNM stage (III–IV vs I–II)	3.054	1.452–6.421	0.003

Figure 3 Kaplan–Meier survival analysis.

Notes: Results indicated that RRBP1 expression (A), lymph node metastasis (B), T stage (C), and TNM (D) stage were associated with patients’ prognosis.