4.5 Article

CD44 variant 6 in endometrioid carcinoma of the uterus: Its expression in the adenocarcinoma component is an independent prognostic marker

Journal

PATHOLOGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Volume 199, Issue 2, Pages 71-77

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH, URBAN & FISCHER VERLAG
DOI: 10.1078/0344-0338-00357

Keywords

CD44; CD44 variant isoform; endometrial cancer; prognosis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The expression of variant isoforms of CD44 (CD44v) correlates with the metastatic potential of various carcinomas. In endometrial cancer, however, the significance of CD44v-expression as a prognostic indicator has not been fully investigated, nor has it been compared with that of p53, estrogen receptor or Ki67. Surgical material consisted of 14 atypical endometrial hyperplasias (AEH) and 163 endometrial carcinomas (EC). Expression of CD44s, v3 and v6 in carcinoma tissue, and other prognostic markers were immunohistochemically evaluated. The expression in the squamous differentiation was strictly excluded for the evaluation of immunohistochemistry, because the significance was different from that in the adenocarcinoma component. CD44s was frequently expressed in AEH and EC. On the other hand, CD44v3- and v6-positivities were rare or nonexistent in AEH, but were observed in 8 and 35% of EC, respectively. CD44v3-expression correlated significantly with histologic grade and lymph node metastasis. However, there was no correlation between CD44v6 expression and any clinicopathologic factor, nor were other prognostic markers expressed. Univariate analysis revealed that each CD44 was a prognostic determinant in the patients with EC. However, employing multivariate analysis, there were only three independent factors: p53 overexpression, CD44v6 expression and myometrial invasion. CD44v6 expression in the adenocarcinoma component may directly affect the behavior of carcinoma and the prognosis of patients with EC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available