4.4 Article

Maspin, p53, p63, and Ki-67 in epithelial lesions of the tongue: from hyperplasia through dysplasia to carcinoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL PATHOLOGY & MEDICINE
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 314-320

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2008.00698.x

关键词

carcinoma; dyplasia; maspin; p53; p63; tongue

资金

  1. Alpha-Omega Research Fund
  2. School of Dentistry, Tel Aviv University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pattern of changes in the expression of mammary serine protease inhibitor (maspin) tumor suppressor protein in tongue epithelial lesions [hyperplasia (HP), mild dysplasia (MD), moderate-to-severe dysplasia (MSD) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC)] was investigated and correlated to the expression of maspin-regulating factors p53 and p63, and the proliferation marker Ki-67. Cases of HP (n = 16), MD (n = 12), MSD (n = 11), and SCC (n = 22) were immunostained for maspin, p53, p63, and Ki-67. Maspin expression was scored separately for the basal, middle, and upper thirds of the epithelial width, and as the total sum of all 'thirds' (maspin-total). p53, p63, and Ki-67 were immuno-morphometrically assessed for the entire epithelial width. Maspin expression was differential and progressive extending to higher epithelial layers as dysplastic changes aggravated and culminated in carcinoma. Strong expression was related to MSD in the middle third and to carcinoma in the upper third. It was frequently lost at the invasion front, where the tumor was less differentiated. The changes in mean scores of maspin-total in the different study groups were positively correlated to the mean scores of p63 (r = 0.5, P < 0.001), p53 (r = 0.4, P = 0.004), and Ki-67 (r = 0.5, P < 0.001). Strong expression of maspin in the middle third of the epithelium may be considered a diagnostic sign of mild-to-moderate dysplasia and an indication of carcinoma in the upper third. The correlations between maspin and controlling factors (e.g. p63 and p53) may be events with key roles in the development of tongue carcinoma.

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