4.6 Article

p53, Ki-67, and serum alpha feto-protein as predictors of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence in liver transplant patients

期刊

MODERN PATHOLOGY
卷 18, 期 11, 页码 1498-1503

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.3800458

关键词

immunohistochemistry; recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who undergo orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) are at risk for posttransplant tumor recurrence. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether expression of p53 and Ki-67 in hepatocellular carcinoma lesions present in explanted liver tissue was associated with time to tumor recurrence after OLT. Subjects consisted of 20 consecutive patients who underwent OLT and were found to have hepatocellular carcinoma in the liver explant. Immunostaining for p53 and Ki-67 was performed by standard methods. The presence of nuclear immunostaining in 410% of the tumor tissue was considered positive. Time to recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after OLT was compared between patients with positive and negative immunostaining by the log rank test. Multivariate analysis was performed using a Cox regression model to control for potentially confounding clinical factors. Time to post-transplant hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence was significantly more rapid in p53+ ( P = 0.0007) and Ki-67+ cases ( P = 0.001). These associations remained significant in multivariate analysis. Furthermore, time to recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma was significantly shorter in patients with a serum alpha feto-protein (AFP) level Z100 ng/ml at time of diagnosis, compared to those with an AFP level <100 ng/ml ( P = 0.003). In conclusion, expression of p53 and Ki-67 in hepatocellular carcinoma lesions, and a serum AFP level Z100 ng/ml were associated with more rapid recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after OLT. Identification of patients at risk for early post-transplant recurrence could be used to guide surveillance and adjuvant treatment strategies.

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