Table 3A.
Association of immunoreactivity of Ro52, CDR2 and HARS antigens with the recurrence status of 21 ovarian cancer patients
| Sample ID | RecurInterval (T2) | Disease status at T2 | CA125 value at T2 | Ro52
|
Western blot figure number | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comparison of level of Ro52 immunoreactivity at T2 and T1 BC represents immunoreactivity value below cutoff at T2 |
Association of Ro52 immunoreactivity at T2 with recurrence status (Asso-R) | |||||
|
| ||||||
| P178 | −4.20 | In chemo, NED | 203 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | Fig. 1B (a,b, lane 5) |
| P265 | −4.87 | In chemo, NED | 54 | BC | None | Fig. 1A (a,b, lane 5) |
| P295 | −5.77 | post chemo, NED | 18 | BC | None | |
| P283 | −13.60 | In chemo, NED | 22 | BC | None | |
| P300 | −3.73 | post chemo, NED | 12 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 was 2.2 fold higher than at T1 | Asso-R | |
| P326* | −4.30 | In chemo, stable disease | 41 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 was 51.5 fold higher than at T1 | Asso-R | Fig. 1E (a,b, lane 5) |
| P336 | −10.00 | post chemo, NED | 20 | BC | None | |
| P341 | −7.10 | In chemo, NED | 37 | BC | None | Fig. 1H (a,b, lane 5) |
| P342 | −3.30 | In chemo, NED | 5 | BC | None | |
| P356* | −9.07 | In chemo, toleratIng treatment | 11 | BC at T2; immunoreactivity value at T1 was missing | None | |
| P367* | −4.33 | In chemo, toleratIng treatment | 29 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 was 1.4 fold higher than at T1 | Asso-R | Fig. 1F (a,b, lane 5) |
| P370 | −2.63 | In chemo, NED | 13 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 dropped by 2 fold | Asso-R | Fig. 1D (a,b, lane 5) |
| P386 | −17.27 | In chemo, Not specified | 16 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 was 1.9 fold higher than at T1 | Asso-R | |
| P392 | −5.93 | post chemo, NED | 9 | BC | None | |
| P376 | −9.93 | post chemo, NED | 7 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 was 5.5 fold higher than at T1 | Asso-R | |
| P378 | −12.37 | In chemo, NED | 9 | The value of IMR at T2 significantly dropped by 21.6 fold | Asso-R | |
| P393* | −5.03 | In chemo, EOD | 26 | BC | None | Fig. 1J (a,b, lane 5) |
| P398* | −10.30 | In chemo, EOD | 24 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | Fig. 1I (a,b, lane 5) |
| P400 | −4.50 | In chemo, NED | 6 | BC | None | |
| P410 | −3.23 | post chemo, NED | 24 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 was 1.6 fold higher than at T1 | Asso-R | Fig. 1C (a,b, lane 5) |
| P413 | −15.53 | In chemo, NED | 8 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 significantly dropped by 20.9 fold | Asso-R | Fig. 1G (a,b, lane 5) |
| Sample ID | RecurInterval (T2) | Disease status at T2 | CA125 value at T2 | CDR2
|
Western blot figure number | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comparison of level of CDR2 immunoreactivity at T2 and T1 BC represents immunoreactivity value below cutoff at T2 |
Association of CDR2 immunoreactivity at T2 with recurrence status (Asso-R) | |||||
|
| ||||||
| P178 | −4.20 | In chemo, NED | 203 | BC | None | Fig. 1B (a,b, lane 6) |
| P265 | −4.87 | In chemo, NED | 54 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 was 2.4 fold higher than at T1 | Asso-R | Fig. 1A (a,b, lane 6) |
| P295 | −5.77 | post chemo, NED | 18 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | |
| P283 | −13.60 | In chemo, NED | 22 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | |
| P300 | −3.73 | post chemo, NED | 12 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | |
| P326* | −4.30 | In chemo, stable disease | 41 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 dropped by 1.5 fold | Asso-R | Fig. 1E (a,b, lane 6) |
| P336 | −10.00 | post chemo, NED | 20 | BC | None | |
| P341 | −7.10 | In chemo, NED | 37 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 was 1.7 fold higher than at T1 | Asso-R | Fig. 1H (a,b, lane 6) |
| P342 | −3.30 | In chemo, NED | 5 | BC | None | |
| P356* | −9.07 | In chemo, toleratIng treatment | 11 | BC | None | |
| P367* | −4.33 | In chemo, toleratIng treatment | 29 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | Fig. 1F (a,b, lane 6) |
| P370 | −2.63 | In chemo, NED | 13 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 dropped by 1.6 fold | Asso-R | Fig. 1D (a,b, lane 6) |
| P386 | −17.27 | In chemo, Not specified | 16 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 was 1.4 fold higher than at T1 | Asso-R | |
| P392 | −5.93 | post chemo, NED | 9 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 dropped by 2 fold | Asso-R | |
| P376 | −9.93 | post chemo, NED | 7 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | |
| P378 | −12.37 | In chemo, NED | 9 | BC | None | |
| P393* | −5.03 | In chemo, EOD | 26 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 dropped by 1.4 fold | Asso-R | Fig. 1J (a,b, lane 6) |
| P398* | −10.30 | In chemo, EOD | 24 | BC | None | Fig. 1I (a,b, lane 6) |
| P400 | −4.50 | In chemo, NED | 6 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | |
| P410 | −3.23 | post chemo, NED | 24 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | Fig. 1C (a,b, lane 6) |
| P413 | −15.53 | In chemo, NED | 8 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | Fig. 1G (a,b, lane 6) |
| Sample ID | RecurInterval (T2) | Disease status at T2 | CA125 value at T2 | HARS
|
Western blot figure number | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comparison of level of HARS immunoreactivity at T2 and T1 BC represents immunoreactivity value below cutoff at T2 |
Association of HARS immunoreactivity at T2 with recurrence status (Asso-R) | |||||
|
| ||||||
| P178 | −4.20 | In chemo, NED | 203 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | Fig. 1B (a,b, lane 1) |
| P265 | −4.87 | In chemo, NED | 54 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 was 2.2 fold higher than at T1 | Asso-R | Fig. 1A (a,b, lane 1) |
| P295 | −5.77 | post chemo, NED | 18 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | |
| P283 | −13.60 | In chemo, NED | 22 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | |
| P300 | −3.73 | post chemo, NED | 12 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | |
| P326* | −4.30 | In chemo, stable disease | 41 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | Fig. 1E (a,b, lane 1) |
| P336 | −10.00 | post chemo, NED | 20 | BC | None | |
| P341 | −7.10 | In chemo, NED | 37 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 was dropped by 1.4 fold at T2 | Asso-R | Fig. 1H (a,b, lane 1) |
| P342 | −3.30 | In chemo, NED | 5 | BC | None | |
| P356* | −9.07 | In chemo, toleratIng treatment | 11 | BC | None | |
| P367* | −4.33 | In chemo, toleratIng treatment | 29 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 was 2 fold higher than at T1 | Asso-R | Fig. 1F (a,b, lane 1) |
| P370 | −2.63 | In chemo, NED | 13 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | Fig. 1D (a,b, lane 1) |
| P386 | −17.27 | In chemo, Not specified | 16 | BC | None | |
| P392 | −5.93 | post chemo, NED | 9 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 dropped by 2.5 fold | Asso-R | |
| P376 | −9.93 | post chemo, NED | 7 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 dropped by 1.5 fold | Asso-R | |
| P378 | −12.37 | In chemo, NED | 9 | BC | None | |
| P393* | −5.03 | In chemo, EOD | 26 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | Fig. 1J (a,b, lane 1) |
| P398* | −10.30 | In chemo, EOD | 24 | Immunoreactivity value at T1 was almost same as at T2 | Asso-R | Fig. 1I (a,b, lane 1) |
| P400 | −4.50 | In chemo, NED | 6 | BC | None | |
| P410 | −3.23 | post chemo, NED | 24 | Immunoreactivity value at T2 was 1.6 fold higher than at T1 | Asso-R | Fig. 1C (a,b, lane 1) |
| P413 | −15.53 | In chemo, NED | 8 | BC | None | Fig. 1G (a,b, lane 1) |
Note: Ovarian cancer patients with asterisk had evidence of disease months before the clinical recurrence ; NED: No evidence of disease; EOD: Evidence of disease
T1 represents time at ovarian cancer diagnosis; T2 represents time in months before the clinical recurrence