4.7 Article

L1 expression as a marker for poor prognosis, tumor progression, and short survival in patients with colorectal cancer

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 1703-1711

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-006-9281-8

关键词

L1; beta-Catenin; E-cadherin; colorectal cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: L1, a new target gene for Wnt/beta-catenin-TCF signaling, has been identified in the invasive front of colorectal cancer cells in vitro study. The L1 molecule is localized on the cell surface in tumor tissues, accompanied with loss of beta-catenin and E-cadherin. However, such association between L1 expression and prognosis of colorectal cancer has not yet been investigated in clinical study. We investigated the expression of L1, E-cadherin, and beta-catenin in tumor cells to determine correlations between the clinicopathologic characteristics and the expression of these molecules and to evaluate the efficacy of the use of these molecules as prognostic markers for patient survival. Methods: We investigated 138 patients who received diagnoses of colorectal cancer and who underwent surgery between January 1995 and December 2000 at the Korea University Hospital. Tissues were obtained from paraffin-embedded blocks of the tumors and studied by tissue microarray analysis. Immunohistochemical staining for L1, beta-catenin, and E-cadherin was performed for each specimen. Results: L1 expression was found to be correlated with advanced cancer stage (P = .001), distant metastasis (P < .001), and tumor recurrence (P = .006). Survival analysis showed that reduced expression of beta-catenin and E-cadherin, and expression of L1 were statistically significantly related to poor survival. Multivariate analysis revealed that L1 expression was an independent prognostic factor for patient survival. Conclusions: L1 expression is associated with tumor progression and poor survival in patients with colorectal cancer and may be clinically useful as a marker for poor prognosis.

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

4.7
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