4.5 Article

Prognostic role of sex steroid receptors in pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Journal

PATHOLOGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Volume 212, Issue 1, Pages 38-43

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1016/j.prp.2015.11.007

Keywords

Sex steroid hormones; Pancreatic adenocarcinoma; Image analysis

Categories

Funding

  1. Alexandros Onassis Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

From the available literature, it is unclear what proportion of pancreatic adenocarcinomas express estrogen receptors (ER alpha, ER beta), progesterone receptors (PR), and androgen receptors (AR), and if any of these markers have prognostic significance. We aimed to assess (1) the expression and (2) the correlation of the aforementioned markers with clinicopathological parameters and prognosis in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. During a five-year period, 60 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma underwent surgical resection at a single institution. Immunohistochemical stains of the studied markers were quantified by Image analysis system. ER alpha expression was positively associated with PR expression. Moreover, ER beta was inversely associated with the presence of metastases, whereas no significant associations implicated AR. As far as the prognostic significance of the studied receptors is concerned, higher ER alpha expression correlated with poorer survival at the univariate analysis, but the finding dissipated at the multivariate approach. No significant associations with overall survival were noted regarding the other receptors. The role of sex hormone receptors in the survival from pancreatic adenocarcinoma seems rather limited. Further prospective studies assessing those receptors should ideally be designed in order to confirm our results and possibly outline additional correlations between other steroid receptors and features of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. (C) 2015 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available