4.4 Article

Micropapillary lung adenocarcinoma:: a distinctive histologic subtype with prognostic significance.: Case series

Journal

HUMAN PATHOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 3, Pages 324-330

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2007.05.029

Keywords

Bax; Bcl-2; c-myc; cyclin D1; epidermal growth factor receptor; Ki67; lung adenocarcinoma; micropapillary pattern; p53

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aims of the present work were to evaluate the prognostic significance of the micropapillary pattern of lung adenocarcinoma and determine whether there are differences in the behavior of this type of tumor according to its immunohistochemical profile. A series of 191 consecutively resected pulmonary adenocarcinomas were divided into those with (n = 62) and those without (n = 129) micropapillary components. The disease was stage I in 38 and 54 patients, respectively. The 5-year survival rates of patients with and without micropapillary components were 54% and 77%, respectively (log rank P = .03). In multivariate survival analysis, the micropapillary component proved to be an independent prognostic factor (hazard ratio, 3.2). Five autopsy cases were used to investigate the immunohistochemical profile. The percentages of cases positive for various markers were 56.7 for p53, 94 for Ki67, 85.1 for c-myc, 2.9 for Bcl-2, 35.8 for epidermal growth factor receptor, 43.3 for cyclin D 1, and 46.3 for Bax. The prognostic value was evaluated according to the expression of the different markers in micropapillary carcinomas in stage I. In univariate analysis, only cyclin D1 expression and Bax expression were associated with significantly worse survival (log rank P = .03 and P = .02, respectively). We conclude that it is important to recognize the micropapillary growth pattern in lung adenocarcinoma. Moreover, cyclin D I and Bax seem to be markers of a poor prognosis. (c) 2008 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available