4.2 Article

Aberrant Expression of Osteopontin and E-Cadherin Indicates Radiation Resistance and Poor Prognosis for Patients with Cervical Carcinoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF HISTOCHEMISTRY & CYTOCHEMISTRY
Volume 63, Issue 2, Pages 88-98

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1369/0022155414561329

Keywords

locally advanced cervical squamous cell carcinoma; radiation resistance; osteopontin; E-cadherin; epithelial-mesenchymal transition; immunohistochemistry

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81372792, 81225013, 81101193]
  2. Hunan Department of Science and Technology Foundation [2013SK2019]
  3. Freedom Explore Fund for the Doctoral Program of Central South University [2013zzts089]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Radiotherapy is the first-line treatment for all stages of cervical cancer, whether it is used for radical or palliative therapy. However, radioresistance of cervical cancer remains a major therapeutic problem. Consequently, we explored if E-cadherin (a marker of epithelial-mesenchymal transition) and osteopontin could predict radioresistance in patients with locally advanced cervical squamous cell carcinoma (LACSCC). Patients were retrospectively reviewed and 111 patients divided into two groups (radiation-resistant and radiation-sensitive groups) according to progression-free survival (PFS). In pretreated paraffin-embedded tissues, we evaluated E-cadherin and osteopontin expression using immunohistochemical staining. The percentage of patients with high osteopontin but low E-cadherin expression in the radiation-resistant group was significantly higher than those in the radiation-sensitive group (p<0.001). These patients also had a lower 5-year PFS rate (p<0.001). Our research suggests that high osteopontin but low E-cadherin expression can be considered as a negative, independent prognostic factor in patients with LACSCC ([Hazard ratios (95% CI) 6.766 (2.940, 15.572)], p<0.001).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available