4.6 Article

Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition predicts prognosis of pancreatic cancer

期刊

SURGERY
卷 154, 期 5, 页码 946-954

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2013.05.004

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Pancreatic cancer has a dismal prognosis that is attributed to common local invasiveness and metastasis. Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) plays an important role in cancer invasion and metastasis and is associated with early dissemination. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between EMT and the prognoses for patients with pancreatic cancer. Methods. Immunohistochemistry of E-cadherin and vimentin was performed on surgical specimens from 174 patients who underwent resection of their pancreatic cancers. Tumoral stainings of E-cadherin and vimentin were graded, and EMT statuses were determined by calculating the ratio of vimentin to E-cadherin, whereby patients were categorized into 3 groups: epithelial, intermediate, and mesenchymal. The correlations between EMT statuses and clinicopathologic factors and prognoses were analyzed. Results. There was a significant correlation between EMT status and CA19-9 levels (P = .020); peritoneal washing cytology (P = .025); portal vein invasion (P = .038); and lymph node metastasis (P = .030). The median survival for patients with epithelial tumors was 40.2 months as compared to 13.7 months for patients with mesenchymal tumors. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that perineural invasion (P = .024); lymph node metastasis (1, = .033); and EMT status (P < .0001) were significant prognostic factors. It is interesting that adjuvant chemotherapy (gemcitabine and/or S-1) improved the median survival time from 10.8 to 16.1 months in patients with mesenchymal tumors (P = .002); however, no significant difference was seen in patients with epithelial tumors. Conclusion. EMT status is an important prognostic factor for pancreatic cancer and is associated with portal vein invasion and lymph node metastasis.

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