Advertisement

Increased expression of protease-activated receptors 2 indicates poor prognosis in HBV related hepatocellular carcinoma

  • Peng Chen
  • Na Yang
  • Li Xu
  • Fangfang Zhao
  • Min ZhangEmail author
Open Access
Research Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Clinical oncology

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the potential role of protease-activated receptor 2 (PAR2) in the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Methods

A total of 202 HCC patients who underwent liver resections were included. Tissue microarray was established with specimens of both HCC and paired adjacent liver tissues. PAR2 expression was detected by immunohistochemistry (IHC) assays.. A semi-quantification method was used to define the expression level of PAR2. The correlations between PAR2 expression and clinical features of patients with HCC was explored. The association of different PAR2 expressions with both overall survival and disease-free survival was analyzed.

Results

Results showed that the expression of PAR2 in HCC tissues was higher than that in paired para-cancerous liver tissues (4.12 ± 3.55 vs. 2.71 ± 2.56, P < 0.001). Higher expression of PAR2 was associated with poor differentiation (P < 0.001) and advanced tumor-node-metastasis stage (P = 0.015). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis indicated that HCC patients with high PAR2 expression had decreased overall survival (P = 0.033) and disease-free survival (P = 0.043) compared to patients with lower PAR2 expression. Multivariate analysis indicated that PAR2 expression (P = 0.032) was a significant independent prognostic factor for both overall survival and disease-free survival (P = 0.032; P = 0.032, respectively).

Conclusion

Our data revealed that PAR2 expression was increased in HCC. High PAR2 expression was correlated with both decreased overall survival and disease-free survival in patients with HCC. High PAR2 expression indicated a poor prognosis.

Keywords

Protease-activated receptors 2 Prognosis Hepatocellular carcinoma Biomarker 

Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common malignant tumors in China, as well as the sixth malignant tumor with high morbidity in the world [1, 2, 3]. Nearly 1 million new cases of HCC are diagnosed each year [4, 5]. Previous evidence revealed that chronic infection with hepatitis viruses represents major risk factor for HCC development and progression [6, 7, 8]., particularly in developing regions, such as East Asia and Africa [9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]. Although liver resections may improve the clinical outcomes of HCC patients, the prognosis is still poor due to the high recurrence rate [15, 16, 17]. Thus, the identification of novel biomarkers to screen HCC patients with poorer clinical outcome is critical for a better clinical management.

Protease-activated receptors (PARs) belong to 7-domain transmembrane G-protein receptor families, including four subtypes, PAR1, PAR2, PAR3, and PAR4 [18, 19]. PARs are characterized by a unique activation mechanism involving protein degradation of the lanthanide ligands. Several studies indicated that PARs were associated with vascular regulation, inflammatory response, tissue fibrosis and carcinogenesis [20, 21, 22], which made PARs the potential targets for novel therapies development. It has been confirmed that PAR2 was involved in development of HCC and pancreas cancer [20, 23]. PAR2 is the only member of PAR family to be considered a tumor suppressor factor in skin tumor [22]. Whether PAR2 has a role in the prognosis of HCC remained to be explored.

Hence, we designed this study to compare survival of HBV related HCC patients with different PAR2 expression and analyze the correlation between PAR2 expression in HCC and patients’ prognosis.

Subjects and methods

2.1 Subjects

202 HCC patients were included in our study. All of them received liver resections from June 2013 to July 2016. All patients were sero-positive for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) [24, 25]. All patients received first-line anti-HBV drugs (Entecavir or Tenofovir) during follow-up [26]. None of the patients received any chemotherapy or radiotherapy. The follow-up period was defined as the time interval from liver resection to the date of death or the last follow-up. The study was approved by the medical ethics committee of Qingdao No.6 People’s Hospital. Since all specimens were collected anonymously, the Medical Ethics Committee exempted patients from the need for informed consent.

2.2 Tissue microarray construction and immunohistochemistry

Tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed as below. In brief, each tissue core (diameter: 0.6 mm) was perforated and re-embedded from the labeled area by using a tissue array. The specimens were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde and blocked using the biotin blocking Kit (Dark, Germany). After blocking, the tissues were incubated with PAR2 antibodies (180,953, 11,000 dilution, Abcam, England) in a humid chamber at 4 °C overnight. The tissues were washed with PBS three times and then incubated with biotinylated goat anti-rabbit antibodies for one-hour at 37 °C. Finally, the slices were stained with hematoxylin and observed under a microscope. Semi-quantitative method was used to define PAR2 protein expression levels according to the following criteria: “0” (negative staining), “1” (weak staining), “2” (moderate staining) and “3” (strong staining). The final score was calculated as the percentage of cells with staining multiplied by the intensity score. The median IHC score was used as a cut-off value for determining high and low PAR2 expression. In our study, microvascular invasion was defined as the presence of tumor cells within the vascular space lined by endothelium observed by microscopy [6, 15, 27].

2.3 Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (version 13; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Student’s t test or Chi square test was used to examine the correlation between PAR2 expression and clinical and pathological variables. The Kaplan-Meier method (logarithmic rank test) was used to construct the survival curve. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to assess the independent predictive factors. P value less than 0.05 was defined as statistically significant.

Results

3.1 Expression of PAR2 in the HCC tissues

The expression level of PAR2 in 202 pairs of HCC tissues and matched paracancerous liver tissues were detected. The median PAR2 expression in HCC tissues was 2.0. The expression level of PAR2 in HCC tissues was 4.12 ± 3.55, significantly higher than that of matched paracancerous liver tissues (2.71 ± 2.56, P < 0.001, Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Expression of PAR2 in HCC tissues. The results showed that the expression level of PAR2 in HCC tissues was 4.12 ± 3.55, significantly higher than that of matched paracancerous liver tissues with 2.71 ± 2.56 (P < 0.001)

3.2 Association of PAR2 with HCC clinical pathologic features

We used the median PAR2 expression level to stratify HCC patients into PAR2 low expression group (< 2.0) and PAR2 high expression group (≥2.0). Demographic data and clinical features of the patients in the two groups were compared. We found that patients with high expression of PAR2 had significantly higher proportion of poor differentiation than those with low expression of PAR2 (P < 0.001). In addition, high expression of PAR2 was associated with advanced tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage (P = 0.015), as shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Clinical variables in patients with high and low expression of PAR2

Variable

PAR2 expression

P value

Low expression

High expression

 Sample size

63

139

 

 Age, years

  

0.074

  > 50

25 (39.7%)

74 (53.2%)

 

  ≤50

38 (60.3%)

65 (46.8%)

 

Gender

  

0.187

 Male

57 (90.5%)

116 (83.5%)

 

 Female

6 (9.5%)

23 (16.5%)

 

AFP, ng/mL

  

0.067

  < 20

18 (28.6%)

24 (17.3%)

 

  ≥ 20

45 (71.4%)

115 (82.7%)

 

Cirrhosis

  

0.889

 Yes

53 (84.1%)

118 (84.9%)

 

 No

10 (15.9%)

21 (15.1%)

 

Tumor size, cm

  

0.154

  < 5

23 (36.5%)

37 (26.6%)

 

  ≥ 5

40 (63.5%)

102 (73.4%)

 

Differentiation

  

< 0.001

 Well-moderate

22 (34.9%)

12 (8.6%)

 

 Poor-undifferentiated

41 (65.1%)

127 (91.4%)

 

TNM stage

  

0.015

 I–II

42 (66.7%)

67 (48.2%)

 

 III–IV

21 (33.3%)

72 (51.8%)

 

Vascular invasion

  

0.290

 Yes

8 (12.7%)

26 (18.7%)

 

 No

55 (87.3%)

113 (81.3%)

 

Abbreviations: PAR2 proteinase activated receptor 2, AFP alpha-fetoprotein

3.3 Association of PAR2 expression with clinical outcomes in patients with HCC

In order to explore the potential impact of PAR2 expression on the survival of HCC patients, we performed a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. The results showed that HCC patients with high expression of PAR2 had decreased overall survival (OS) compared to patients with low expression of PAR2 (P = 0.033). We also compared the difference in the disease-free survival (DFS) between the PAR2 high-expression group and the low-expression group. The results showed that patients with high expression of PAR2 had decreased disease-free survival compared with patients with low expression of PAR2 (P = 0.043). A similar trend was found in HCC recurrence, with significantly higher proportion of recurrence in patients with high expression level of PAR2 compared with low expression group (P = 0.047), as shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2

The prognostic predictive value of PAR2 in HCC. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that HCC patients with high expression of PAR2 had a worse prognosis in overall survival than patients with low expression of PAR2 (P = 0.033, a). For disease-free survival, patients with low expression of PAR2 had a better prognosis in disease-free survival compared with patients with high expression of PAR2 (P = 0.043, b). For HCC recurrence, significantly higher proportion of recurrence in patients with high expression level of PAR2 compared with low expression group (P = 0.047, c)

3.4 Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors in HCC

To evaluate whether PAR2 expression was an independent risk factor for outcomes in HCC, both univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted. Univariate analysis indicated that TNM stage (P = 0.017), vascular invasion (P < 0.001) and PAR2 expression (P = 0.027) were prognostic factors for OS in patients with HCC. The multivariate analysis showed that vascular invasion (P < 0.001) and PAR2 expression (P = 0.032) were independent prognostic factors for OS (Table 2).
Table 2

Univariate and multivariate analyses of variables for overall survival

Variables

Univariate analysis

 

Multivariate analysis

HR

95% CI

P

 

HR

95% CI

P

 Age

0.918

0.668–1.262

0.598

    

 Sex

0.739

0.459–1.191

0.215

    

 AFP

1.121

0.788–1.594

0.525

    

 Cirrhosis

1.184

0.804–1.743

0.393

    

 Tumor size, cm

1.100

0.786–1.538

0.579

    

 Differentiation

0.824

0.518–1.312

0.415

    

 TNM stage

1.094

1.002–1.709

0.017

    

 Vascular invasion

2.642

1.751–3.985

< 0.001

 

2.118

1.648–3.845

< 0.001

 PAR2 expression

1.427

1.062–2.118

0.027

 

1.347

1.041–1.914

0.032

Abbreviations: PAR2 proteinase activated receptor 2, AFP alpha-fetoprotein

We further explored the risk factors associated with DFS (Table 3) and HCC recurrence (Table 4). Univariate analysis showed that tumor size (p = 0.022), vascular invasion (p = 0.002) and PAR2 expression (p = 0.030) were risk factors associated with DFS. Multivariate analysis also showed that tumor size (p = 0.035), vascular invasion (P = 0.007) and PAR2 expression (P = 0.032) were independent risk factors associated with DFS. For HCC recurrence, the multivariate analysis indicated that vascular invasion (P = 0.026) and PAR2 expression (P = 0.048) were independent risk factors associated with HCC recurrence.
Table 3

Univariate and multivariate analyses for disease-free survival

Variables

Univariate analysis

 

Multivariate analysis

HR

95% CI

P

 

HR

95% CI

P

Age

0.856

0.554–1.322

0.482

    

Sex

0.614

0.314–1.203

0.155

    

AFP

1.005

0.633–1.595

0.984

    

Cirrhosis

1.278

0.742–2.204

0.377

    

Tumor size, cm

1.130

1.066–1.526

0.022

 

1.012

1.008–1.479

0.035

Differentiation

1.602

0.816–3.144

0.816

    

TNM stage

1.022

0.555–1.884

0.555

    

Vascular invasion

1.869

1.004–3.512

0.002

 

1.824

1.004–3.194

0.007

PAR2 expression

1.007

1.003–1.462

0.030

 

1.002

1.002–1.521

0.032

Abbreviations: PAR2 proteinase activated receptor 2, AFP alpha-fetoprotein

Table 4

Univariate and multivariate analyses for recurrence

Variables

Univariate analysis

 

Multivariate analysis

HR

95% CI

P

 

HR

95% CI

P

Age

0.929

0.586–1.471

0.752

    

Sex

0.624

0.307–1.269

0.193

    

AFP

0.863

0.536–1.391

0.546

    

Cirrhosis

1.182

0.679–2.057

0.555

    

Tumor size, cm

0.985

0.583–1.663

0.955

    

Differentiation

1.379

0.694–2.737

0.359

    

TNM stage

1.096

0.566–2.122

0.786

    

Vascular invasion

1.919

1.069–3.696

0.001

 

1.827

1.051–2.885

0.026

PAR2 expression

1.057

1.005–1.631

0.032

 

1.048

1.002–1.379

0.048

Abbreviations: PAR2 proteinase activated receptor 2, AFP alpha-fetoprotein

Discussion

HCC is a common malignant tumor with high mortality in China [28, 29]. Early diagnosis and liver resection may improve the clinical outcome of HBV-related HCC patients. However, due to the high rate of recurrence, the prognosis of HCC patients is still poor.

PARs are proteins coupled to the G protein [22]. The expression of PAR2 is significantly increased in digestive tract tumors and is involved in tumour proliferation, invasion and metastasis [18, 19, 20, 21].. In our study, we found that PAR2 showed differential expression between HCC and paired liver tissues. Furthermore, high expression of PAR2 was associated with poorer differentiation and advanced TNM stage, which indicated PAR2 might participate in the progression of HBV-related HCC. In addition, our study indicated that HCC patients with high PAR2 expression had both decreased OS and DFS.

PAR2 is ubiquitously expressed in various tissues of the digestive system [30, 31]. Some studies also indicated that PAR2 is increased in malignant tumors such as breast cancer, lung cancer and esophageal cancer [19, 32, 33, 34].

The results of this study confirmed that the expression of PAR2 is increased in HCC tissues making PAR2 a potential prognostic biomarker and therapeutic target in HCC. However, the mechanism by which PAR2 promotes HCC progression remains to be elucidated.

There are some limitations in our study. Since it is a retrospective study, limited data available not allowed to investigate the potential relationship between HBV infection and PAR2. Moreover, immunohistological measurement of PAR2 expression has been performed by a semiquantitative methodic. Further studies on larger cohort of patients will allow to validate the role of PAR2 in HCC and its potential prognosis prediction value. In summary, our data showed that PAR2 expression was increased in HCC. High PAR2 expression was correlated with both decreased OS and DFS in patients with HCC and served as an independent factor for poor prognosis.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank help and support from hospital for the study.

Authors’ contributions

MZ designed the study and edited the final version of the manuscript; PC and NY conducted the sample analysis and drafted the paper; PC and LX contributed to the statistical analyses; NY and FFZ provided the clinical samples. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Qingdao No.6 People’s Hospital. Since all specimens used were anonymous, the Medical Ethics Committee exempted patients from the need for informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. 1.
    EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2018;69(1):182–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    El-Serag HB. Hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(12):1118–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Forner A, Llovet JM, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. LANCET. 2012;379(9822):1245–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Forner A, Reig M, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. LANCET. 2018.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cai SH, Lu SX, Liu LL, Zhang CZ, Yun JP. Increased expression of hepatocyte nuclear factor 4 alpha transcribed by promoter 2 indicates a poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma. Ther Adv Gastroenterol. 2017;10(10):761–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cai SH, Lv FF, Zhang YH, Jiang YG, Peng J. Dynamic comparison between Daan real-time PCR and Cobas TaqMan for quantification of HBV DNA levels in patients with CHB. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14:85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ou H, Cai S, Liu Y, Xia M, Peng J. A noninvasive diagnostic model to assess nonalcoholic hepatic steatosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Ther Adv Gastroenterol. 2017;10(2):207–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cai S, Cao J, Yu T, Xia M, Peng J. Effectiveness of entecavir or telbivudine therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection pre-treated with interferon compared with de novo therapy with entecavir and telbivudine. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(22):e7021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cai S, Li Z, Yu T, Xia M, Peng J. Serum hepatitis B core antibody levels predict HBeAg seroconversion in chronic hepatitis B patients with high viral load treated with nucleos(t) ide analogs. INFECT DRUG RESIST. 2018;11:469–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wu X, Cai S, Li Z, Zheng C, Xue X, Zeng J, Peng J. Potential effects of telbivudine and entecavir on renal function: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Virol J. 2016;13:64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Xue X, Cai S. Comment on "assessment of liver stiffness in pediatric Fontan patients using transient Elastography". Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;2016:9343960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xue X, Cai S, Ou H, Zheng C, Wu X. Health-related quality of life in patients with chronic hepatitis B during antiviral treatment and off-treatment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tanaka Y. Risk management of HBV reactivation: construction of check system. Rinsho Byori. 2015;63(9):1052–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lu JB, Cai SH, Pan YH, Yun JP. Altered epidermal fatty acid-binding protein expression in hepatocellular carcinoma predicts unfavorable outcomes. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:6275–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xiao YB, Cai SH, Liu LL, Yang X, Yun JP. Decreased expression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha indicates unfavorable outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:1781–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang Y, Chen SW, Liu LL, Yang X, Cai SH, Yun JP. A model combining TNM stage and tumor size shows utility in predicting recurrence among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after resection. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:3707–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arakaki A, Pan WA, Trejo J. GPCRs in Cancer: Protease-Activated Receptors, Endocytic Adaptors and Signaling. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19:(7).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jiang P, De Li S, Li ZG, Zhu YC, Yi XJ, Li SM. The expression of protease-activated receptors in esophageal carcinoma cells: the relationship between changes in gene expression and cell proliferation, apoptosis in vitro and growing ability in vivo. Cancer Cell Int. 2018;18:81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bar-Shavit R, Maoz M, Kancharla A, Jaber M, Agranovich D, Grisaru-Granovsky S, Uziely B. Protease-activated receptors (PARs) in cancer: novel biased signaling and targets for therapy. Methods Cell Biol. 2016;132:341–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nieman MT. Protease-activated receptors in hemostasis. BLOOD. 2016;128(2):169–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosero RA, Villares GJ, Bar-Eli M. Protease-activated receptors and other G-protein-coupled receptors: the melanoma connection. Front Genet. 2016;7:112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rullier A, Senant N, Kisiel W, Bioulac-Sage P, Balabaud C, Le Bail B, Rosenbaum J. Expression of protease-activated receptors and tissue factor in human liver. Virchows Arch. 2006;448(1):46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cai S, Ou Z, Liu D, Liu L, Liu Y, Wu X, Yu T, Peng J. Risk factors associated with liver steatosis and fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B patient with component of metabolic syndrome. United European Gastroenterol J. 2018;6(4):558–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cai S, Yu T, Jiang Y, Zhang Y, Lv F, Peng J. Comparison of entecavir monotherapy and de novo lamivudine and adefovir combination therapy in HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B with high viral load: 48-week result. Clin Exp Med. 2016;16(3):429–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zeng J, Cai S, Liu J, Xue X, Wu X, Zheng C. Dynamic changes in liver stiffness measured by transient Elastography predict Clinical outcomes among patients with chronic hepatitis B. J Ultrasound Med. 2017;36(2):261–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wei X, Li N, Li S, Shi J, Guo W, Zheng Y, Cheng S. Hepatitis B virus infection and active replication promote the formation of vascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2017;17(1):304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ozakyol A. Global epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC epidemiology). J Gastrointest Cancer. 2017.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zheng C, Yan H, Zeng J, Cai S, Wu X. Comparison of pegylated interferon monotherapy and de novo pegylated interferon plus tenofovir combination therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis B. INFECT DRUG RESIST. 2019;12:845–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sung TS, Kim HU, Kim JH, Lu H, Sanders KM, Koh SD. Protease-activated receptors modulate excitability of murine colonic smooth muscles by differential effects on interstitial cells. J Physiol. 2015;593(5):1169–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Han N, Jin K, He K, Cao J, Teng L. Protease-activated receptors in cancer: a systematic review. Oncol Lett. 2011;2(4):599–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ghio P, Cappia S, Selvaggi G, Novello S, Lausi P, Zecchina G, Papotti M, Borasio P, Scagliotti GV. Prognostic role of protease-activated receptors 1 and 4 in resected stage IB non-small-cell lung cancer. CLIN LUNG CANCER. 2006;7(6):395–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ramsay AJ, Dong Y, Hunt ML, Linn M, Samaratunga H, Clements JA, Hooper JD. Kallikrein-related peptidase 4 (KLK4) initiates intracellular signaling via protease-activated receptors (PARs). KLK4 and PAR-2 are co-expressed during prostate cancer progression. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(18):12293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lidfeldt J, Bendahl PO, Forsare C, Malmstrom P, Ferno M, Belting M. Protease activated receptors 1 and 2 correlate differently with breast Cancer aggressiveness depending on tumor ER status. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e134932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peng Chen
    • 1
  • Na Yang
    • 2
  • Li Xu
    • 3
  • Fangfang Zhao
    • 4
  • Min Zhang
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Gastroenterology DepartmentShandong Zaozhuang Mining Group Central HospitalZaozhuangChina
  2. 2.Blood transfusion department of Zaozhuang Maternal and Child Health HospitalZaozhuangChina
  3. 3.Purchasing department of Shandong Zaozhuang Mining Group Central HospitalZaozhuangChina
  4. 4.Liver Diseases DepartmentShandong Zaozhuang Mining Group Central HospitalZaozhuangChina
  5. 5.Department of Gastroenterology, Qingdao No.6 People’s HospitalQingdaoChina

Personalised recommendations