4.7 Article

Evaluation of two phosphorylation sites improves the prognostic significance of Akt activation in non-small-cell lung cancer tumors

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 306-314

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.4133

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Akt is a serine/threonine kinase that has been implicated in lung tumorigenesis and lung cancer therapeutic resistance. Full activation of Akt requires two phosphorylation events, but only one site of phosphorylation (S473) has been evaluated thus far in clinical non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) specimens, which has resulted in conflicting results regarding the prognostic significance of Akt activation in NSCLC. In this study, we sought to determine whether evaluation of Akt phosphorylation at T308 would improve prognostic accuracy. Patients and Methods Phosphospecific antibodies against T308 and S473 were validated and used in an immunohistochemical analysis of tissue microarray slides containing NSCLC specimens (n = 300) and surrounding lung tissue specimens (n = 100). Results Phosphorylation of either S473 or T308 was positive in most NSCSLC specimens, but was detected rarely in surrounding normal tissues. When Akt activation was defined by using both sites of phosphorylation, Akt activation was specific for NSCLC tumors versus surrounding tissue (73.4% v 0%; P < .05), was higher in adenocarcinoma than in squamous cell carcinoma (78.1% v 68.5%; P = .040), and was associated with shorter overall survival for all stages of disease (log-rank P = .041). In multivariate analyses, increased phosphorylation of T308 alone was a poor prognostic factor for stage I patients or for tumors < 5 cm (log-rank P = .011 and P = .015, respectively). Conclusion These results suggest that monitoring phosphorylation of Akt at T308 improves the assessment of Akt activation, and show that Akt activation is a poor prognostic factor for all stages of NSCLC.

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