4.5 Article

Endoglin (CD105) expression in sinonasal polyposis

Journal

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
Volume 272, Issue 11, Pages 3367-3373

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-014-3456-x

Keywords

Nasal polyposis; Surgery; Nasal polyps relapse; CD105

Funding

  1. University of Padova, Italy [60A07-4322/13, 60A07-1341/12]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite appropriate surgical therapy, 5-10 % of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and nasal polyps (NP) experience disease recurrences. It has been suggested that angiogenesis may relate to the pathogenesis and prognosis of CRS with NP. Endoglin (CD105) is a component of the receptor complex of transforming growth factor-beta, a pleiotropic cytokine that modulates angiogenesis. A series of patients treated surgically for CRS with NP was analyzed to assess the relationship between CD105 expression, main clinicopathological features, and recurrence rate. The immunohistochemical expression of CD105 was assessed in 70 patients consecutively operated for CRS with NP. In the univariate setting, the presence of CD105 (1/0) showed a trend towards a significant association with increasing NP dimensions (p = 0.054). Intensity of CD105 reaction was also significantly associated with NP size (0.04) and with an eosinophilic histology (p = 0.048). In our multivariate setting, only asthma (p = 0.016), hypereosinophilia (p = 0.022), and preoperative polyposis score (p = 0.046) retained their independent prognostic significance in relation to NP recurrence. Further efforts are needed to elucidate the biological, angiogenic and proliferative mechanisms behind recurrent NP. Our preliminary results support the clinical utility of extra postoperative care, in terms of closer follow-ups and medication with oral anti-histamines, topical and/or oral steroids, and antileukotrienes in patients with asthma, advanced nasal polyposis at presentation, and serum hypereosinophilia.

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