4.4 Article

Prognostic Role of Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Interacting Protein (AIP) Immunohistochemical Expression in Patients with Resected Gastric Carcinomas

期刊

PATHOLOGY & ONCOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 2641-2650

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.1007/s12253-020-00863-7

关键词

Gastric cancer; Prognosis; Aryl hydrocarbon receptor interacting protein; AIP; Immunohistochemistry

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) interacting protein (AIP) is a chaperone which binds to inactive AHR in the cell cytoplasm. AHR is best known for mediating the toxicity of halogenated aromatics, but it has also been linked to carcinogenesis and tumor progression in several tumor types. Our aims are to assess the features of AIP immunohistochemical (IHC) staining and to evaluate its possible role as a prognostic marker in gastric cancer (GC). Retrospective study of 147 cases of resected GC. Clinicopathological features were collected, tissue microarrays were constructed for AIP IHC and statistical analysis were performed. AIP staining was observed in 50.3% of tumors. All AIP-positive cases exhibited cytoplasmic or membranous staining, variably associated with nuclear co-staining. 93.2% of AIP-positive tumors showed AIP immunoreactivity in 100% of cells. Staining intensity was mild, moderate and intense in 33.8%, 13.5% and 52.7% of cases. Tumors were stratified according to AIP staining intensity into low expression (no or mild AIP immunoreactivity) and high expression (moderate or intense AIP immunoreactivity). 36.6% of our cases showed high AIP expression. High AIP expression was significantly and independently correlated to tumor progression and cancer death. Tumors with high AIP expression showed lower survival and higher progression rates. AIP expression might be useful for determining GC prognosis. More studies are needed to clarify the role of AHR pathway in GC, AIP expression and its potential use as a surrogate marker for selecting patients for AHR modulation therapy.

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