4.4 Article

Tissue microarray based analysis of prognostic markers in invasive bladder cancer: Much effort to no avail

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2006.08.021

关键词

bladder cancer; radical cystectomy; prognosis; tissue microarray

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate altered protein expression with tissue microarray methodology for 15 different markers with potential prognostic significance in invasive bladder cancer. Materials and Methods: Invasive tumor was sampled with the tissue-arraying instrument in 133 consecutive patients who underwent radical cystectomy, and at least 3, 0.6-min tissue cores were obtained. With immunohistochemistry, the expressions of TP53, RB1, CDKN1A (p21), MKI67 (Ki67), PTGS2 (Cox-2), CTNNA1 (alpha-catenin), CTNNB1 (beta-catenin), AKT, PTEN, RHOA, RHOC, STAT1, VEGFC, EGFR, and ERBB2 (HER2) were quantified, and correlations were made with tumor grade, pathologic stage, lymph node status, and disease-specific survival. Results: Decreased immunohistochemical expression of CTNNA1 and of PTEN correlated with higher pathologic tumor stages (P = 0.01 and P = 0.01, respectively), whereas increased AKT1 and ERBB2 correlated with lower pathologic tumor stages (P = 0.01 and P = 0.03, respectively). Increased RHOA expression was more common in grade 3 than in grade 2 tumors (P = 0.016). There were no other correlations among the 15 factors studied and pathologic stage, lymph node status, or tumor grade. No association was found between bladder cancer death and altered marker status for my of the markers studied. Conclusions: Currently, there are reasons to have a skeptical attitude toward the value of tissue microarray based immunohistochemistry as a method for evaluating prognostic markers in invasive bladder cancer. In this study, 15 antibodies were tested but were found to be of little clinical value. Whether this negative finding is related to the group of patients or factors studied, or the methodology is unclear. (c) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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