4.1 Article

Expression of Ki67 and CD105 as Proliferation and Angiogenesis Markers in Salivary Gland Tumors

Journal

ASIAN PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION
Volume 13, Issue 10, Pages 5155-5159

Publisher

ASIAN PACIFIC ORGANIZATION CANCER PREVENTION
DOI: 10.7314/APJCP.2012.13.10.5155

Keywords

Ki67; CD105; salivary gland tumor; proliferation; angiogenesis

Categories

Funding

  1. Vice-Chancellery for Research of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences [90-5562]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate the association between CD105 and tumor cell proliferation in salivary gland tumors. Methods: In this study, 59 samples of salivary tumors from Khalili Hospital archive, including 20 cases of pleomorphic adenoma (PA), 20 cases of mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) and 19 cases of adenoid cystic carcinoma, as well as 10 cases of normal salivary gland tissue, were reviewed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for CD105 and Ki67 staining. Results: CD105 positive vessels were absent in normal salivary gland tissue in the vicinity of tumors (51.6% of all tumors were positive). There was a statistically significant difference in frequency of CD105 staining between PA and malignant tumors and between four groups of different lesions (p<0.000) being highest in MEC. Intratumoral microvessel density was also elevated in malignant neoplasms (2.61 +/- 3.1) as compared to PA (0.46 +/- 0.6). Normal salivary glands did not express Ki67. There was a statistically significant difference in frequency and percentage of Ki67 immunoreactivity in malignant neoplasms (86.5% and 10.7 +/- 10.8 respectively) compared to PA (50% and 0.78 +/- 0.2) and among the four groups values were highest in MEC (p<0.000). Conclusion: n this study, it was observed a higher rate of angiogenesis and cellular proliferation was noted in malignant tumors compared to benign tumors, but no correlation was observed between these two markers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available