4.7 Article

Expression of endoglin (CD105) in cervical cancer

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 100, Issue 10, Pages 1617-1626

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605009

Keywords

cervical cancer; angiogenesis; cytokines

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we have investigated the role of endoglin (CD105), a regulator of transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta(1) signalling on endothelial cells, basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) in cervical cancer. We have measured the number and determined the location of both newly formed (CD105-positive) and the overall number of (CD31-positive) blood vessels, and bFGF and VEGF-A expression using immunohistochemistry in 30 cervical carcinoma specimens. Vascular endothelial growth factor-A mRNA expression was determined using RNA-in situ hybridisation. CD105- and CD31-positive vessels and bFGF-and VEGF-A-positive cells were predominantly present in the stroma. The presence of CD105- and CD31-positive vessels in the stroma did neither correlate with the number of VEGF-A-positive cells nor the number of bFGF-positive cells. However, the number of CD105- and CD31-positive vessels was associated with the expression of VEGF-A mRNA in the epithelial cell clusters (P = 0.013 and P = 0.005, respectively). The presence of CD105-positive and CD31-positive vessels was associated with the expression of alpha v beta 6 (a TGF-beta(1) activator; P = 0.013 and P = 0.006, respectively). Clinically, the number of CD105-positive vessels associated with the number of lymph node metastasis (P<0.001). Furthermore, the presence of CD105-positive vessels within the epithelial cell clusters associated with poor disease-free survival (P = 0.007). British Journal of Cancer (2009) 100, 1617-1626. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605009 www.bjcancer.com Published online 7 April 2009 (C) 2009 Cancer Research UK

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