4.5 Article

EGFR expression: Associations with outcome and clinicopathological variables in malignant pleural mesothelioma

Journal

LUNG CANCER
Volume 54, Issue 3, Pages 399-407

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2006.08.012

Keywords

malignant mesothelioma; prognosis; epidermal growth factor receptor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Malignant mesothelioma (MM) is a fatal tumour of increasing incidence which is related to asbestos exposure. This work evaluated expression in MM of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) by immunohistochemistry in 168 tumour sections and its correlations with clinicopathological and biological factors. The microvessel density (MVD) was derived from CD34 immunostained sections. Hematoxylin and eosin stained sections were examined for intra-tumoural necrosis. COX-2 protein expression was evaluated with semi-quantitative Western blotting of homogenised tumour supernatants (n = 45). EGFR expression was correlated with survival by Kaplan-Meier and log rank analysis. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the effects of EGFR with clinicopathological and biological prognostic factors and prognostic scoring systems. EGFR expression was identified in 74 cases (44%) and correlated with epithelioid cell type (p < 0. 0001), good performance status (p < 0.0001), the absence of chest pain (p < 0.0001) and the presence of TN (p = 0.004), but not MVD or COX-2. EGFR expression was a good prognostic factor in univariate analysis (p = 0.01). Independent indicators of poor prognosis in multivariate analysis were non-epithelioid cell type (p = 0.0001), weight toss, performance status and WBC > 8.3 x 10(9) L-1. EGFR status was not an independent prognostic factor. EGFR expression in MM correlates with epithelioid histology and TN. EGFR may be a target for selective therapies in MM. (C) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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