4.4 Article

Increased expression of putative cancer stem cell markers in primary prostate cancer is associated with progression of bone metastases

期刊

PROSTATE
卷 72, 期 7, 页码 713-720

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pros.21473

关键词

prostate cancer; alpha 2 integrin; alpha 6 integrin; c-met; bone metastasis; survival; immunohistochemistry

资金

  1. PROMET
  2. EU
  3. Astellas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND A number of putative stem cell markers have been associated with aggressiveness of prostate cancer, including alpha 2 and alpha 6 integrin and c-met. The study aimed to test the hypothesis that the development of bone metastasis correlates with the proportion of prostate cancer stem cell-like cells present in the primary tumor. METHODS Prostate tissue samples were obtained from patients with high-risk prostatic adenocarcinoma. Prostate cancer tumor tissue samples underwent immunohistochemical staining for alpha 2 and alpha 6 integrin and c-met; positive and negative controls were included. Samples were scored as positive if >5% of cells within the sample stained positively. Survival and bone metastasis-free survival curves on the patient cohort were estimated by the actuarial method of KaplanMeier. RESULTS A total of 62 patients were included in the study. Bone metastases progression rate was 46% at 105 months with a median time of 46 months (95% CI: 162.5 months); prostate cancer-specific survival was 33% at 122 months with a median survival time of 69.4 months (95% CI: 63.5109.4 months). Survival curves show that c-met-, alpha 2, and alpha 6 integrin-positive tumors were positively associated with the occurrence of bone metastasis-free survival. There was a higher level of significance when at least c-met and either alpha 2 or alpha 6 integrin was positive. CONCLUSION It can be concluded that percentage of stem cell-like prostate cancer cells has a prognostic impact especially on the risk of metastatic bone progression. Prostate 72:713720, 2012. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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