4.4 Article

CD10 expression in pancreatic endocrine tumors: correlation with prognostic factors and survival

Journal

HUMAN PATHOLOGY
Volume 37, Issue 7, Pages 802-808

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2006.02.024

Keywords

CD10; endocrine tumors; pancreas

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

CD10 is a cell surface metalloprotease expressed by a variety of hematopoietic and solid tumors. Immunohistochemical expression of CD10 was examined in 91 pancreatic endocrine tumors (PETs) in tissue microarrays and representing various stages of tumorigenesis as well as in 10 normal pancreas tissues. The results were correlated with prognostic factors, namely, Ki-67 index and microvascular density. Thirty PETs (33%) showed positive cytoplasmic staining, and in 7 cases (8%), membranous staining also was observed. Stromal CD10 positivity was observed in 29 PETs (32%). In nontumoral pancreatic tissue, the islets were consistently negative. Epithelial cytoplasmic expression of CD10 increased with World Health Organization classification: CD10 was detected in 12% of benign tumors, 29% of tumors of uncertain prognosis, 38% of well-differentiated carcinomas, and 86% of poorly differentiated carcinomas. Membranous expression of CD10 correlated with poor differentiation (P =.0004). Expression of CD10 also correlated significantly with a high proliferative index (P =.020), low microvascular density (P =.043), large tumor size (P =.023), and presence of metastasis (P =.013). Expression was associated with decreased survival (P =.017). No statistical relation was observed between stromal CD10 expression and any of the histopathologic criteria examined. In conclusion, CD10 is expressed in a subset of PETs and correlates with histopathologic indicators of poor outcome, suggesting a role for this molecule in tumorigenesis and prognostic analysis. (c) 2006 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available