4.7 Article

p53 expression in squamous dysplasia associated with carcinoma of the oesophagus: evidence for field carcinogenesis

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 83, Issue 8, Pages 1033-1038

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1443

Keywords

dysplasia; oesophagus; p53; immunohistochemistry; field carcinogenesis; prognosis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Squamous epithelial dysplasia is often observed multifocally in the cancerous oesophagus and is presumably considered to be a pre-cancerous lesion, A mutation of the p53 tumour suppressor gene is commonly identified in oesophageal cancer and dysplasia. p53 mutations can be anticipated immunohistochemically. In order to confirm the biological and clinical significance of p53 expressions in oesophageal field carcinogenesis, immunostaining for p53 in cancerous and muitifocal precancerous lesions from resected human oesophagus was systematically investigated, while paying special attention to the contiguity of these lesions. Lesions expressing p53 were detected in 46.5% (20 of 43 lesions) of the invasive carcinoma, and in 51.0% (46 of 90 lesions) of the carcinoma in situ, and in 51.4% (92 of 179 lesions) of the dysplasia. Next, the p53 expression in dysplasia was compared with that in carcinoma for the same case. 37 of 39 (94.8%) dysplasias contiguous to p53-positive carcinomas also expressed p53 (P < 0.0001), On the other hand, the isolated dysplasias without contiguity to p53-positive carcinomas, only expressed p53 protein in 44.0% (11 of 25 lesions). No significant correlations were found between the p53 staining and either the clinicopathological features or prognosis. Discordant p53 alterations, such as those seen in cancerous and isolated precancerous lesions, may thus demonstrate further evidence for a multicentric or field carcinogenesis of the human oesophagus. (C) 2000 Cancer Research Campaign.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available