Could Moesin Be a New Marker for Indicating Progression in Endometrial Cancer?

Figures & data

Table 1 Comparison of Demographic Data Between Groups

		Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	p
Age		45.4±4.7	48.0±8.7	53.1±10.0	57.0±9.9	0.000
Parity		3.2±1.5	2.1±0.7	2.2±0.7	2.2±0.8	0.057
BMI	25↓	10 (66.7%)	47(83.9%)	27(75%)	40(63.5%)	0.087
	25–30	3 (20%)	7(12.5%)	8(22.2%)	19(30.2%)
	30↑	2(13.3%)	2(3.6%)	1(2.8%)	4(6.3%)
Hypertension	Yes	2(13.3%)	9(16.1%)	12(33.3%)	24(38.1%)	0.026
	No	13(86.7%	47(83.9%)	24(66.7%)	39(61.9%)
Diabetes Mellitus	Yes	1 (6.7%)	4 (7.1%)	3(8.3%)	10(15.9%)	0.395
	No	14(93.3%)	52(92.9)	33(91.7%)	53(84.1%)
Heart Disease	Yes	0	1(1.8%)	4(11.1%)	8 (12.7%)	0.078
	No	15	55(98.2%)	32(88.9%)	55(87.3%)
CA 125		24.0±5.9	14.8±8.0	13.9±9.1	29.9±33.3	0.094

Notes: Kruskal–Wallis statistical method. P<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant (in bold).

Table 2 Diffusiveness, Density and Score of ERM Proteins Between Groups

	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	p
Ezrin Diffusiveness	1.0±0.9	1.1±0.7	1.8±1.0	2.1±1.0	0.688^β 0.020^€ 0.002^¥ 0.000^& 0.000^₺ 0.210^α
Ezrin Density	1.0±0.9	1.6±1.1	1.8±0.9	2.0±0.9	0.100^β 0.028^€ 0.004^¥ 0.070^& 0.480^₺ 0.303^α
Ezrin Score	1.7±1.7	2.2±1.7	3.9±2.5	4.9±3.0	0.389^β 0.014^€ 0.002^¥ 0.000^& 0.001^₺ 0.105^α
Radixin Diffusiveness	0.3±0.6	1.0±1.1	1.5±1.2	1.7±1.3	0.025^β 0.002^€ 0.004^¥ 0.019^& 0.063^₺ 0.727^α
Radixin Density	0.2±0.4	0.7±0.7	0.9±0.8	1.3±1.2	0.017^β 0.003^€ 0.003^¥ 0.006^& 0.205^₺ 0.145^α
Radixin Score	0.3±0.6	1.5±2.1	2.2±2.3	3.7±3.6	0.025^β 0.003^€ 0.003^¥ 0.004^& 0.065^₺ 0.164^α
Moesin Diffusiveness	0.5±0.7	1.3±0.9	1.8±1.0	2.3±1.0	0.009^β 0.001^€ 0.000^¥ 0.000^& 0.032^₺ 0.003^α
Moesin Density	0.4±0.5	1.3±0.9	1.8±1.0	1.9±1.0	0.004^β 0.000^€ 0.000^¥ 0.001^& 0.035^₺ 0.433^α
Moesin Score	0.5±0.7	2.5±2.5	3.9±2.8	5.3±3.2	0.004^β 0.000^€ 0.000^¥ 0.000^& 0.015^₺ 0.045^α

Notes: Group 1 versus Group 2:^β, Group 1 versus Group 3:^€, Group 1 versus Group 4:^¥, Group 2 versus Group 4:^&, Group 2 versus Group 3:^₺, Group 3 versus Group 4:^α. Normal endometrial tissue (group 1(n:30)), Endometrial hyperplasia without atypia (group 2(n:56), Endometrial hyperplasia with atypia (group 3(n:36)), Endometrial cancer (group 4(n:63)). Data are presented as mean±standard deviation (min-max) and comparisons are made to Mann Whitney U-Test. P<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant (in bold).

Figure 1 (A) Very mild ezrin expression in proliferative endometrial tissues. (B) Weak ezrin expression in cases of endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. (C) Moderate ezrin expression in patients with endometrial hyperplasia with atypia. (D) Severe ezrin expression in endometrial cancer cases.

Figure 2 (A) Negative radixin expression in proliferative endometrial tissues. (B) Weak radixin expression in cases of endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. (C) Moderate radixin expression in cases of endometrial hyperplasia with atypia. (D) Severe radixin expression in endometrial cancer cases.

Figure 3 (A) Negative moesin expression in proliferative endometrial tissues. (B) Weak moesin expression in cases of endometrial hyperplasia without atypia. (C) Moderate moesin expression in cases of endometrial hyperplasia with atypia. (D) Severe moesin expression in endometrial cancer cases.

Table 3 Diffusiveness, Density and Score of ERM Proteins According to Myometrial Infiltration, Stage and Grade in Endometrial Cancers

	Myometrial Infiltration			Stage					Grade
	Yes	No	p	Stage 1	Stage 2	Stage 3	Stage 4	p	Grade 1	Grade2	Grade3	p
Ezrin Diffusiveness	2.0±1.0	2.2±1.0	0.452	2.1±1.1	1.8±0.8	2.4±0.7	2.0±0.0	0.605	2.1±0.9	1.8±1.2	2.2±1.2	0.663
Ezrin Density	1.9±0.9	2.0±0.9	0.666	1.9±0.9	1.6±0.5	2.5±0.7	3.0±0.0	0.063	2.0±0.9	1.8±1.1	2.1±1.0	0.847
Ezrin Score	4.7±3.1	5.3±3.0	0.506	4.9±3.1	3.0±2.0	6.4±2.8	6.0±0.0	0.216	4.8±2.9	4.6±3.4	5.8±3.6	0.687
Radixin Diffusiveness	1.6±1.4	1.7±1.2	0.858	1.7±1.3	0.6±1.3	2.0±1.3	3.0±0.0	0.200	1.5±1.3	2.0±1.5	2.1±1.2	0.454
Radixin Density	1.2±1.2	1.6±1.1	0.214	1.4±1.1	0.6±1.3	1.6±1.2	3.0±0.0	0.199	1.3±1.2	1.3±1.2	1.8±1.2	0.518
Radixin Score	3.5±3.6	4.0±3.5	0.423	3.7±3.5	1.8±4.0	4.4±3.5	9.0±0.0	0.210	3.4±3.6	4.0±3.6	4.8±3.6	0.572
Moesin Diffusiveness	2.4±1.0	2.0±1.1	0.031	2.2±1.1	2.0±1.4	2.6±0.5	3.0±0.0	0.792	2.3±0.9	1.8±1.4	2.4±1.1	0.616
Moesin Density	2.0±1.0	1.8±1.0	0.408	1.8±1.0	1.6±1.1	2.4±0.7	3.0±0.0	0.288	2.0±1.0	1.5±1.2	2.1±1.2	0.449
Moesin Score	5.8±3.2	4.2±3.2	0.055	5.0±3.3	4.4±3.7	6.5±2.5	9.0±0.0	0.332	5.3±3.2	4.4±3.6	6.0±3.4	0.639

Notes: Chi-square test and Kruskal–Wallis statistical method. P<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant (in bold).

Table 4 Diffusiveness, Density and Score of ERM Proteins According to Lymph Node Invasion, Radiotherapy, Chemotherapy and Mortality in Endometrial Cancers

	Lymph Node Invasion			Radiotherapy			Chemotherapy			Mortality
	Yes	No	p	Yes	No	p	Yes	No	p	Yes	No	p
Ezrin Diffusiveness	2.5±0.7	2.1±1.0	0.704	2.1±0.8	2.0±1.1	0.963	2.0±1.0	2.1±1.0	0.518	2.1±1.1	1.7±1.0	0.213
Ezrin Density	3.0±0.0	1.9±0.9	0.078	2.1±0.8	1.9±1.0	0.488	2.1±1.0	1.9±0.9	0.402	1.7±0.9	1.8±1.0	0.787
Ezrin Score	7.5±2.1	4.8±3.0	0.228	5.1±2.9	4.9±3.1	0.844	5.0±3.2	5.0±3.0	0.906	4.5±3.3	3.7±2.7	0.521
Radixin Diffusiveness	1.5±2.1	1.7±1.3	0.849	1.7±1.4	1.6±1.3	0.747	1.7±1.4	1.7±1.3	0.993	2.0±1.3	1.4±1.2	0.212
Radixin Density	0.5±0.7	1.4±1.2	0.309	1.3±1.2	1.4±1.1	0.814	1.5±1.4	1.3±1.1	0.676	1.4±1.1	1.0±0.9	0.256
Radixin Score	1.5±2.1	3.7±3.6	0.420	3.9±3.6	3.6±3.5	0.948	4.4±4.0	3.5±3.4	0.654	3.7±3.1	2.5±3.0	0.201
Moesin Diffusiveness	3.0±0.0	2.3±1.0	0.309	2.5±0.8	2.1±1.1	0.127	2.5±0.8	2.2±1.1	0.576	2.5±1.0	1.8±1.0	0.030
Moesin Density	2.5±0.7	1.9±1.0	0.522	2.1±0.9	1.8±1.1	0.347	2.2±0.9	1.8±1.0	0.333	2.2±1.2	1.6±1.0	0.119
Moesin Score	7.5±2.1	5.2±3.3	0.353	5.9±3.0	4.7±3.3	0.136	6.0±2.9	5.0±3.3	0.275	6.3±3.5	3.8±3.0	0.039

Notes: Chi-square test statistical method. P<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant (in bold).

Figure 4 Relationship between moesin diffusiveness and survival.