4.3 Article

Expression of inflammatory secretory phospholipase A2 and cytosolic phospholipase A2 in premalignant and malignant Barrett's oesophagus

Journal

VIRCHOWS ARCHIV
Volume 444, Issue 5, Pages 426-435

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00428-004-1003-7

Keywords

phospholipase A2; cytosolic phospholipase A2; inflammatory secretory phospholipase A2; Barrett's oesophagus; oesophageal adenocarcinoma

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims. To establish the prevalence of inflammatory secretory phospholipase A2 (sPLA2) and cytoplasmic phospholipase A2 (cPLA2) expression in a surgical series of Barrett's adenocarcinoma and associated preneoplastic lesions and to correlate this expression with clinicopathological data and prognosis. Methods. sPLA2 and cPLA2 were analysed by means of immunohistochemistry in surgical specimens of 67 and 73 cases of Barrett's adenocarcinomas, respectively. Barrett's mucosa was analysed in 31 cases. Results. Expression of sPLA2 was detected in 48% of Barrett's mucosa negative for intraepithelial neoplasia and 63% of Barrett's adenocarcinoma. Semi-quantitative analysis revealed a significant increase in sPLA2 expression between Barrett's mucosa negative for intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma. cPLA2 expression was detected in 18% of Barrett's adenocarcinoma. An inverse correlation was found between cPLA2 expression and depth of tumour infiltration, neoplastic vascular invasion and neoplastic perineural invasion. Survival analysis showed no significant prognostic value for sPLA2 and cPLA2. Conclusion. sPLA2 is frequently expressed in Barrett's oesophagus. The increasing expression of sPLA2 that we observed from Barrett's mucosa to adenocarcinoma suggests that sPLA2 could be involved in Barrett's carcinogenesis. In contrast, cPLA2 expression is less frequently observed in Barrett's oesophagus and is inversely associated with aggressive pathological features of the tumours.

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