4.5 Article

Kallikrein 5 overexpression is associated with poor prognosis in uterine cervical cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 31, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

KOREAN SOC GYNECOLOGY ONCOLOGY & COLPOSCOPY
DOI: 10.3802/jgo.2020.31.e78

关键词

Uterine Cervical Cancer; Kallikreins; Radiation Therapy; Prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Kallikrein 5 (KLK5), which is frequently observed in normal cervico-vaginal fluid, is known to be related to prognosis in several solid tumors. We investigated the prognostic significance of KLK5 in uterine cervical cancer using tumor tissue microarray and immunohistochemistry staining. Methods: We analyzed samples of165 patients with uterine cervical cancer who received definitive radiation therapy between 2004 and 2012. We divided patients into two groups stratified by their KLK5 activity by immunohistochemistry staining: negative/weak (0-1+) (n=120 patients) and moderate/strong (2-3+) group (n=45 patients). Patient and tumor characteristics, patterns of failure, and survival outcomes were compared. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors. Results: Patients with KLK5 2-3+ were younger (median: 52 vs. 60 years) and had frequent paraaortic lymph node involvement (40.0% vs. 18.3%) than those with KLK5 0-1+. With a median follow-up of 60.8 (interquartile range, 47.5-77.9) months, patients with KLK5 2-3+ had inferior 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival of 61.7% (vs. 77.5% in KLK5 0-1+ group) and 59.4% (vs. 72.8% in the KLK5 0-1+ group), respectively (all p<0.05). KLK5 2-3+ expression retained its significance after adjusting for other well-known prognostic factors of tumor size and stage in multivariable analysis. Conclusions: KLK5 overexpression is associated with the aggressiveness of cervical cancer and may underlie the diminished response to conventional treatments. Therefore, KLK5 could be a reliable prognostic factor in cervical cancer.

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