4.4 Article

Prognostic role of N-cadherin expression in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.01.012

关键词

N-cadherin; Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer; Urothelial tumor; Transurethral resection; Prognosis; Prediction; Progression; Recurrence; Survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To assess the role of N-cadherin as a prognostic biomarker in patients with non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) treated with transurethral resection with or without adjuvant intravesical therapy. Patients and methods. Immunohistochemistry using monoclonal mouse antibody was used to evaluate the expression status of N-cadherin in 827 patients with NMIBC. N-cadherin was considered positive if any immunoreactivity with membranous staining was detected. Multivariable Cox regression models were performed to evaluate the prognostic effect of N-cadherin on survival outcomes. Results: N-cadherin expression was observed in 333 patients (40.3%); it was associated with pT1 stage and high tumor grade (both were P < 0.001). Median follow-up was 55 months (interquartile range: 18-106). On multivariable Cox regression analyses that adjusted for the effect of the standard clinicopathologic features, N-cadherin expression remained associated with recurrence-free survival (P = 0.007) but not progression-free survival (P = 0.3), cancer-specific survival (P = 0.2), or overall survival (P = 0.9). Adding N-cadherin to a model for prediction of disease recurrence modestly improved its discrimination from 72.8% to 73.4%. Conclusion: N-cadherin is expressed in approximately 2/5 patients with NMIBC. Its expression is associated with adverse pathological features and higher risk of disease recurrence but not progression. N-cadherin could be incorporated in predictive tools to assist in recurrence prediction helping thereby in patient selection regarding adjuvant therapies and follow-up planning. (C) 2017 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