4.3 Article

Mu-Opioid Receptor Expression in Laryngeal Cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF VOICE
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages 433-439

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.02.018

Keywords

Mu-opioid receptor; Laryngeal cancer; Supraglottic squamous cell carcinoma; Intravenous drug abuse

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to assess the expression of opioid receptors in laryngeal cancer and compare it with adjacent non-malignant tissue. Immunohistochemical stains were used to analyze 64 specimens, and the results showed a significant increase in opioid receptor staining intensity in laryngeal carcinoma. The study suggests that opioid receptors may play a role in the development of laryngeal cancer.
Objectives. Expression of mu-opioid receptors (MORs) has not been investigated in head and neck cancer. In this study, we aimed to assess the expression of opioids receptors in laryngeal cancer, compared to adjacent non-malignant tissue.Study design. A retrospective case series in a single academic center. Methods. Sixty-four specimens were taken from 32 matched patients, diagnosed with laryngeal-carcinoma (20 supraglottic and 12 glottic), and were analyzed using immunohistochemical stains for MOR. All sections were examined and evaluated with a semi-quantitative analysis for staining intensity and cell count for a percent-age of the positively stained cells. Survival of patients was compared based on MOR expression.Results. MOR staining intensity was significantly increased in laryngeal-carcinoma compared to the normal tissue adjacent to the carcinoma (P = 0.019). The percentage of stained cells in non-involved supraglottis was significantly higher compared to the non-involved glottis (P = 0.022), yet this difference was no longer found between supra-and glottic-carcinoma tissues.Conclusion. MOR may play a role in the laryngeal cancer environment, as the expression in tumor cells alters from adjacent non-cancerous tissue.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available