Development and clinical validation of a 3-miRNA signature to predict prognosis of gastric cancer

Introduction

Gastric cancer (GC) is one of the most common malignant tumors globally, which seriously threatens the health and life expectancy of those affected. According to the latest statistics from GLOBOCAN, there were 1.033 million new cases of GC worldwide and approximately 783,000 deaths from the disease in 2008 (Ferlay et al., 2019). Surgical resection can be effective in the early treatment of GC (Sun et al., 2011). However, patients with gastric cancer often lack typical symptoms at an early stage. As a result, over 70% of patients are already in the advanced stage of gastric cancer at the time of diagnosis, so gastric cancer often has a poor prognosis (Song et al., 2017). High rates of invasiveness and metastasis are also important causes of poor prognosis in GC (Mayer, Venook & Schilsky, 2014; Deng & Liang, 2014).

MiRNA regulates the expression of a variety of cancer-related genes in cells while participating in the cell cycle, apoptosis, proliferation, differentiation, and other processes (Friedman et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2017; Shi et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2017; Lima et al., 2016; Stevanato et al., 2016; Momen-Heravi et al., 2015). The occurrence of tumors is often accompanied by changes in the expression of some specific miRNA. There is obviously tissue specificity, and there are different mechanisms in different types of tumors and different pathological stages. Moreover, miRNA can exist stably in the blood and other body fluids. This feature makes it possible for miRNA to become a convenient, non-invasive, and effective tumor marker.

MiRNA is involved in the occurrence, metastasis, and prognosis of tumor. There have been multiple studies on miRNA and gastric cancer prognosis. It was revealed that MicroRNA-375 is downregulated in gastric carcinomas and regulates cell survival by targeting PDK1 and 14-3-3zeta (Tsukamoto et al., 2010); miR-218 suppresses gastric cancer cell cycle progression through the CDK6/Cyclin D1/E2F1 axis in a feedback loop (Deng et al., 2017); MiR-196a is upregulated in gastric cancer and promotes cell proliferation by downregulating p27 (Sun et al., 2012); microRNA-451 regulates macrophage migration inhibitory factor production and proliferation of gastrointestinal cancer cells (Bandres et al., 2009). Ueda et al. (2010) discovered that 22 microRNAs in gastric cancer were up-regulated, while 13 genes were down-regulated in 160 non-tumor and cancer paired GC samples, and their histological subtypes were characterized by specific microRNA characteristics.

In the genome era, a large number of genome sequencing techniques and data analyses have made enormous contributions to tumor diagnosis and prognosis prediction (Wang, Gerstein & Snyder, 2009). Gene regulation is a complex network, and researchers began to use sequencing data to build a multi-gene model, combined with multiple gene detection to study tumors. For example, Zhao et al. (2019) used univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis to identify miRNA related to GC patients’ prognosis from the TCGA-STAD cohort. A predictive risk model based on a 5-miRNA signature was established. Comprehensive analysis of miRNA and mRNA expression profiling chips using univariate and multivariate Cox regression revealed a novel mRNA/miRNA signature that can improve the risk classification of GC patients (Yin et al., 2019). Zhang et al. (2018) used the 20 pairs of GC and normal tissues adjacent to the tumor in the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) cohort to identify three prognostic miRNA features (miR-145-3p, miR-125b-5p, and miR-99a-5p).

In this study, we constructed a 3-miRNA signature and nomogram for GC. Comparison with other signatures proves the superiority of our model. Internal validation and experimental verification confirm its accuracy and reliability. It can be used as an independent biomarker to predict GC prognosis, which is conducive to guiding further clinical treatment.

Materials and Methods

Results

Construction of miRNA prognosis signature

A total of 171 differential miRNAs were obtained in the GSE23739 cohort, and a total of 116 differential miRNAs were obtained in the GSE93415 cohort (Tables S1 and S2, Fig. 1). We merged the differentially expressed miRNAs from the GSE23739 and GSE93415 cohorts and obtained 275 miRNAs. Then we extracted the expression values of these differential miRNAs from the TCGA database and identified a total of 138 miRNAs. Univariable Cox analysis resulted in 40 prognostic miRNAs, and the samples from TCGA_STAD cohort were randomly divided into a training set (N = 204) and test set (N = 205) following 1:1.

We analyzed the trajectory of each independent variable by lasso cox analysis (Fig. 2A). It can be observed that as the lambda gradually shrinks, the number of independent variable coefficients tending to 0 gradually increased. We use 10 cross-validation to construct the signature and analyze the confidence interval under each lambda, as shown in Fig. 2B. We can see that the model is optimal when lambda = 0.0853281. At which time, the corresponding number of miRNAs is 3, so, we chose 3 miRNAs (hsa-miR-126-3p, hsa-miR-143-5p, hsa-miR-1275) as the candidate biomarkers.

Finally, for the three selected miRNAs, we have established a risk model as follows: Risk score = (0.0829 * expression value of hsa-miR-126-3p) + (0.0191 * expression value of hsa-miR-143-5p) + (−0.0271 * expression value of hsa-miR-1275).

We use the survmier package to determine the best cutoff value according to the risk score and classify patients into high-risk (n = 159) and low-risk (n = 65) groups. Survival analysis showed that patients with high and low risk could be clearly separated (Fig. 3). Then we performed a univariate multivariate cox regression analysis of gender, age, number of lymph nodes, tumor stage, radiotherapy and risk score, and found that miRNA signature can be used as an independent risk factor for the prognosis of gastric cancer patients (Table 1).

Validation of the 3-miRNA signatures for survival prediction in the validation cohort

To verify the predictive ability of the 3 miRNAs we found, we verified them in the testing cohort and found that the results were similar to the training cohort (Fig. 4), then we used univariable and multivariable cox analysis on the testing cohort to find this miRNA signature that can still be used as an independent risk factor for the GC patients prognosis (Table 2).

Functional enrichment analysis of miRNA target genes

A total of unique 157 targeted genes regulated by three miRNAs (Table S3).The target genes are mainly enriched in tumor-related pathways such as Focal adhesion, mTOR signaling pathway, Bacterial invasion of epithelial cells and so on. In terms of GO function, it is mainly enriched in regulation of MAP kinase activity, negative regulation of TORC1 signaling, homotypic cell–cell adhesion, stress-activated MAPK cascade and so on (Fig. 5).

Construct nomogram and model evaluation

We found that Riskscore has the longest line in training cohort, indicating it is the most significant for nomograms (Fig. 6A). Calibration plots were used to visualize the performances of the nomograms. The 45° line represented the best prediction. Calibration plots showed that the nomogram performed well (Figs. 6B–6C). The clinical usefulness was assessed using DCA. The nomogram showed the best net benefit (Figs. 6D–6E).

We used the ROC curve to evaluate the accuracy of the nomogram at different times. We found that the AUC for 3 years was 0.69, and for 5 years is 0.65 (Fig. 6F). We know that TNM staging plays an important role in the occurrence and development of diseases. Therefore, we further explored the impact of stage and the miRNA signature on GC survival. ROC analysis was evaluated, and as shown in Fig. 6G, we found that the ROC of the TNM stage was 0.59, and the ROC of the 3-miRNA risk score was 0.69.

Combined with the prediction of 3-miRNA signature and TNM, the AUC area reached 0.72. When 07 ≤AUC ≤0.8, it is within the range of acceptable discrimination. This shows that our prognostic model, combined with TNM, will have better survival prediction abilities and clinical utility. The results of the testing cohort are consistent with the training cohort, proving the stability of our signature (Figs. 6H–6M).

Comparison of other signatures in GC

By consulting the literature, we selected two prognostic risk models: three-miRNA signature (Zhang et al., 2018), five-miRNA signature (Zhang et al., 2019), and our miRNAs model for comparison. To make the models comparable, we calculated the risk score of each sample in the training cohort using the same method according to the corresponding miRNAs in these two models.

Then, we evaluated the ROC of each model and calculated the prognostic difference between the high- and low-risk groups. Although the two miRNA models can significantly distinguish the prognosis, all the AUC curve <0.6, which is lower than our miRNA model (Fig. 7).

Validation of miRNA expression in clinical samples

Twenty pairs of GC and tumor-adjacent normal tissues were included. We found that hsa-miR-126-3p and hsa-miR-143-5p are highly expressed in gastric cancer tissues compared to adjacent normal tissues, and hsa-miR-1275 is lowly expressed in tumor tissues compared to adjacent normal tissues. The expression trend is consistent with our training cohort and validation cohort (Fig. 8).

Discussion

GC is the fourth most common and deadly cancer in the world. It is also the second most common cause of cancer-related death in China (Chen et al., 2016; Torre et al., 2015). Surgery occupies a rather important role for patients with advanced gastric cancer. In some countries, the treatment mode of gastric cancer has been developed from a single surgical treatment to perioperative chemotherapy, coupled with standardized surgery (Qi et al., 2016). Distinguishing the high-risk GC patients with poor prognosis and determine the most appropriate individualized treatment is critical.

miRNA is a type of small RNA of non-coding protein with a length of 20 to 25 nucleotides. They have demonstrated involvement in a variety of physiological and pathological processes, including cell proliferation and differentiation, invasion, and apoptosis, as well as cell cycle regulation. Abnormal expression of miRNA is essential for the progression of GC.

A total of three hub miRNAs were identified in this study. Current research shows that miR-143 generally acts as a tumor suppressor in GC and can play a role by inhibiting the migration, metastasis, and invasion of GC cells (Lei et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2013). Belian et al. (2010) studied the effect of YB-1 on the conversion of miRNA expression in drug-sensitive GC and found that miR-1275 expression was up-regulated after inhibiting YB-1 expression. Mei et al. (2019) found that MicroRNA-1275 can regulate vimentin and E-cadherin through JAZF1, thereby inhibiting cell migration and invasion in GC. Feng et al. (2018) showed that down-regulated serum miR-126 is associated with aggressive progression and poor prognosis of gastric cancer. Li, Wang & Wang (2018) found that miR-126 functions as a Tumor Suppressor by Targeting SRPK1 in Human Gastric Cancer. However, it has not been reported that the combination of these 3 miRNAs can predict the prognosis of patients with GC.

In this study, we first identified the differentially expressed miRNA through GEO cohorts, then performed univariable Cox analysis on these miRNAs in the TCGA cohort. We constructed a 3-miRNA signature in the TCGA training cohort by LASSO regression analysis, and an internal testing cohort was used to prove our model has good robustness. At the same time, to prove the superiority of our signature, after consulting the literature, we finally chose the signatures of Zhang C (Wickham, 2016) and Zhang Z (Raymond et al., 2005), to compare with our miRNA model. It can be seen that although the two miRNA models can significantly distinguish the prognosis, all the AUC curves <0.6, which is lower than our miRNA model. This further shows the advantages of our model in prognosis prediction.

Pathological staging is a key prognostic factor for oncologists and GC patients. However, patients at the same cancer stage may have different clinical outcomes, indicating that the current clinical staging system is not accurate enough to distinguish the prognosis. The current pathological diagnosis is based on the anatomical structure and staging system of the disease, and cannot fully reflect the biological heterogeneity of GC patients. These problems may affect the accuracy of traditional systems in predicting GC patient prognosis.

We combined the 3-miRNA signatures to construct the nomogram. DCA and calibration were used to confirm that the risk model could perform a reliable and satisfactory prediction of patient prognosis. We found that compared with the traditional pathological stage, the nomogram has the best ability to predict the prognosis.

Conclusion

We established a novel 3-miRNA prognostic risk model for GC. The results show that the 3-miRNA prognosis model is a reliable tool for predicting the prognosis of GC. The nomogram can help clinicians choose personalized treatment for GC patients. However, large-scale prospective and multi-center studies are still needed to evaluate the robustness of the model before clinical application. The potential biological mechanisms associated with the model should also be studied.

Supplemental Information