4.6 Article

Elucidation of the relationship of BNIP3 expression to gemcitabine chemosensitivity and prognosis

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 13, 期 34, 页码 4593-4597

出版社

W J G PRESS
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i34.4593

关键词

BNIP3; chemosensitivity; gemcitabine; pancreatic cancer; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To evaluate the significance of BNIP3 in the pathogenesis of pancreatic cancer, we analyzed the relationship between the expression of BNIP3 and survival rate of the patients with pancreatic cancer, or chemosensitivities in pancreatic cancer cell lines, particularly for gemcitabine, the first-line anti-tumor drug for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: To compare the expression level of BNIP3 with the resistance to gemcitabine, eight pancreatic cancer cell lines were subjected to gemcitabine treatment and the quantitative real-time RT-PCR method was used to evaluate BNIP3 expression. Immunohistochemical analysis was also performed using 22 pancreatic cancer specimens to study relationship between BNIP3 expression and survival rate. RESULTS: Although no significantly positive association between BNIP3 mRNA level and gemcitabine chemosensitivity was observed, pancreatic canter cell lines that were sensitive to gemcitabine treatment tended to show high levels of BNIP3 expression. The converse, an absence of BNIP3 expression, was not correlated with gemcitabine resistance. We further compared the BNIP3 expression profiles of resected primary pancreatic cancer specimens with the prognosis of the patients, and found a tendency of favorable prognosis and low BNIP3 expression. CONCLUSION: High levels of BNIP3 expression cannot be used as one of the predicting factors for gemcitabine chemosensitivity, and some yet to be known factors will have to fill the gap for the accurate prediction of pancreatic cancer chemosensitivity to gemcitabine. However, BNIP3 expression may have an impact on prediction of prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer. (c) 2007 WJG. 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

4.6
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