4.6 Article

The Prognostic Significance of Focal Adhesion Kinase Expression in Stage I Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 1278-1284

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000248

关键词

Focal adhesion kinase; Prognosis; Non-small-cell lung cancer; Tumor marker

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute
  2. Roswell Park Cancer Institute Cancer Center
  3. RO-1 grant [CA65910]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Focal adhesion kinase (FAK) plays a significant role in cancer cell survival signaling and is overexpressed in various malignancies, including lung cancer. Previous studies suggest that FAK overexpression is an independent factor predicting poor prognosis in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The aim of this study is to confirm these findings specifically in stage I NSCLC. Methods: A retrospective tissue microarray (TMA) analysis of FAK protein expression by immunohistochemistry was performed in 157 surgically resected stage I NSCLC specimen and in the corresponding matched normal lung tissue. The FAK 4.47 monoclonal antibody was used for FAK immunostaining. The scoring system of triplicate tumor cores included intensity of staining plus extent of staining for a composite score that ranged from 0 to 6. The association between FAK score and survival was evaluated. Results: There were 103 stage IA and 54 stage IB patients, with mean follow-up of 5.5 years. Normal lung alveoli and interstitial tissue had mean FAK score of 0 (median score 0, range 0 to 2). Tumor samples had mean FAK score 3.1 (median score 3.5, range 0-6), with 57% of the samples having FAK score = 3. Continuous FAK score was not associated with demographic data, tumor histology, or grade, nor survival in this cohort of stage I NSCLC patients. Conclusions: FAK is expressed in more than 50% of stage I NSCLC lung cancer but not in normal lung alveoli and interstitial tissue. FAK expression is not associated with survival outcome in this North American cohort.

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

4.6
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