4.7 Article

Expression and prognostic significance of pepsinogen C in gastric carcinoma

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 7, Issue 7, Pages 508-514

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10434-000-0508-9

Keywords

gastric cancer; prognosis; pepsinogen C; pepsinogen A

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: in this study we evaluated the expression and clinical significance of pepsinogen C, an aspartic proteinase involved in the digestion of proteins in the stomach, in patients with gastric cancer. Methods: Pepsinogen C expression was examined by immunohistochemical methods in a series of 95 gastric carcinomas. The prognostic value of pepsinogen C was retrospectively evaluated by multivariate analysis taking into account conventional prognostic parameters. Follow-up period of patients was 21.4 months. Results: A total of 25 (26.3%) gastric carcinomas stained positively for pepsinogen C. The percentage of pepsinogen C-positive tumors was higher in well-differentiated (50%) than in moderately differentiated (19.5%) and poorly differentiated (21.9%) tumors (P < .05). Similarly, significant differences in pepsinogen C immunostaining were found between node-negative and node-positive tumors (47.1% vs. 14.7%; P < .001). in addition, statistical analysis revealed that pepsinogen C expression was associated with clinical outcome in gastric cancer patients. Low pepsinogen C levels predicted short overall survival periods in the overall group of patients with gastric cancer (P < .001), and in 71 patients with resectable carcinomas (P < .005). Multivariate analysis according to Cox's model indicated that pepsinogen C immunostaining was an independent predictor of outcome for both overall and resectable gastric cancer patients (P < .05, for both). Conclusions: The expression of pepsinogen C in gastric cancer may represent a useful biological marker able to identify subgroups of patients with different clinical outcomes.

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