4.5 Article

Assessment of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) expression in human meningioma

期刊

RADIATION ONCOLOGY
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1748-717X-5-46

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study explores whether meningioma expresses epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and determines if there is a correlation between the WHO grade of this tumor and the degree of EGFR expression. Methods: Following institutional review board approval, 113 meningioma specimens from 89 patients were chosen. Of these, 85 were used for final analysis. After a blinded review, immunohistochemical stains for EGFR were performed. Staining intensity (SI) was scored on a scale 0-3 (from no staining to strong staining). Staining percentage of immunoreactive cells (SP) was scored 1-5 (from the least to the maximum percent of the specimen staining). Immunohistochemical score (IHS) was calculated as the product of SI and SP. Results: Eighty-five samples of meningioma were classified in accordance with World Health Organization (WHO) criteria: benign 57/85 (67%), atypical 23/85 (27%), and malignant 5/85 (6%). The majority of samples demonstrated a moderate SI for EGFR. IHS for EGFR demonstrated a significant association between SI and histopathologic subtype. Also, there was a correlation between the SP and histopathologic subtype (p = 0.029). A significant association was determined when the benign and the atypical samples were compared to the malignant with respect to the SP (p = 0.009). While there was a range of the IHS for the benign and the atypical histologic subtypes, malignant tumors exhibited the lowest score and were statistically different from the benign and the atypical specimens (p < 0.001). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this represents the largest series of meningioma samples analyzed for EGFR expression reported in the literature. EGFR expression is greatest in benign meningiomas and may serve a potential target for therapeutic intervention with selective EGFR inhibitors.

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

4.5
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