When S100A4 is treated as Everolimus order a categorical variable in multivariate Cox proportional hazard model, the HR of 2.59 (0%-30% group) and 3.02 (≥30% group) indicate that the hazard rate is close to three times greater for people in these groups compared to those with 0% expression of nuclear

S100A4. Besides S100A4, the only other covariates that were significant independent predictors of survival were the involvement of resection margins and of regional lymph nodes, with an HR similar to S100A4 ≥30% (2.62 for resection margin involvement, 3.56 for lymph node involvement). To study whether nuclear S100A4 expression was associated with increased development of metastasis we analyzed a subset of 67 subjects (78%) for which metastatic data were available. This subgroup, as shown in Supporting Table S2, was well representative of the complete series

as expression of nuclear S100A4, clinical features, and outcome. The survival Selleckchem Torin 1 curve (Fig. 2B) showed a significant difference in time to metastasis between patients with negative S100A4 and those with weak/strong positive S100A4 (P = 0.0052). Using the Weibull model, we also analyzed the impact of S100A4 nuclear positivity on death and on the development of metastasis in relation to the same variables, studied with the Cox model. The analysis showed that the effect of S100A4 on death and metastasis was very similar and confirm that nuclear S100A4 has a strong predictive power on the development of metastasis when considered both as a continuous learn more (HR = 1.022, P = 0.0274) and as a categorical variable (HR = 5.894, P = 0.0012) (Table 3). As a further proof of the reliability of this approach, the results with Weibull model for death were very similar to those obtained with the Cox model (Tables 3, S3). Noteworthy, by comparing the estimated hazard function for death and metastasis with

the Weibull model we found that, whereas for death the hazard over time increased, the rate decreased for metastasis, the hazard was very high at the beginning, and it dropped very rapidly over time (see Fig. S1). Because of its strong association with survival, we hypothesized that nuclear expression of S100A4 was functionally involved in determining the invasiveness of the tumor. TFK-1 and EGI-1 are human CCA cell lines that differ in terms of S100A4 expression. In contrast to TFK-1 cells, which showed a weak immunoreactivity for S100A4 strictly confined to the cytoplasm, in EGI-1 cells staining for S100A4 showed a strong nuclear positivity, at immunohistochemistry as well as at WB (Fig. 3A-E). In fact, WB analysis of nuclear extracts confirmed that an intense, specific band at 12 kDa was present in the nuclear protein fraction in EGI-1, but not in TFK-1 cells (Fig. 3E). We used EGI-1 and TFK-1 cells to compare, by in vivo bioluminescence as well as at autopsy, their metastatic behavior, following xenotransplantation into SCID mice by intrasplenic injection.