4.4 Article

ERBB3 as an independent prognostic marker for nasopharyngeal carcinoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 67, 期 8, 页码 667-672

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2013-202154

关键词

-

资金

  1. Faculty of Science, Mahidol University
  2. Thailand Research Fund [RMU5380009]
  3. Faculty of Graduate Studies, Mahidol University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Although the ERBB proteins have been shown to be associated in many types of human tumours and serve as important cancer therapeutic targets, however, data regarding the expression and clinical relevance of ERBBs in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) are still conflicting. The aim of this study is to investigate the expression pattern of all ERBB members simultaneously in NPC tissues using immunohistochemistry and determine their clinical relevance. Methods The expression of all members of ERBB proteins was evaluated using immunohistochemistry on 82 NPC tissue samples. Relationship between the ERBB protein expression, clinicopathological parameters and patient outcome was assessed using univariate and multivariate analyses. Results We found that ERBB1, ERBB2 and ERBB3 were strongly expressed in the normal nasopharyngeal epithelial cells. A marked reduction of ERBB1 and ERBB2 expression in NPC was observed compared with the non-cancerous tissues. 76 of 82 (92.7%) cases were ERBB3-positive, while ERBB4 was not expressed in both normal and NPC. The univariate log-rank analysis showed that regional lymph node metastasis, systemic metastasis, recurrence and ERBB3 expression were associated with patient survival. The ERBB3 expression was not correlated to other clinicopathological factors. Furthermore, multivariate analysis revealed that ERBB3 expression was an independent prognostic factor influencing patient survival. Conclusions Our results suggested that the expression of ERBB3 is associated with patient survival and could serve as a novel and valuable predictor for prognostic evaluation of patients with NPC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据