4.2 Article

Ki-67, Bcl-2 and p53 expression in primary and metastatic melanoma

期刊

MELANOMA RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 375-381

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00008390-200510000-00005

关键词

Bcl-2 immunohistochemistry; Ki-67 (Mib-1); melanoma; metastasis; p53; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to clarify the roles of the tumour proliferation marker Ki-67, the anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-2 and the cell cycle regulator p53 in primary cutaneous and metastatic melanoma. One hundred and seventeen primary melanomas and 18 metastatic tissue samples were analysed for immunohistochemical expression of Ki-67, Bcl-2 and p53. The staining results were correlated with disease progression and clinical outcome. The patient population comprised patients diagnosed with melanoma between 1988 and 1991. The clinical follow-up period for disease recurrence was 4.6 years (median; range, 0.2-75 years) and the follow-up period for overall survival was 10.0 years (median; range, 8.6-15.6 years). Ki-67 expression was not a prognostic factor in primary melanoma. High Bcl-2 expression was associated with such adverse prognostic factors as male gender, old age of the patient and tumour ulceration. High Bcl-2 expression was also associated with an adverse prognosis in intermediate-thickness (1.01-4.0 mm) melanomas (n = 52) for disease-free (P = 0.09) and overall (P = 0.08) survival. In multivariate analysis, tumour thickness was the strongest prognostic factor for disease-free survival (P < 0.01). High p53 expression indicated a poorer prognosis (P = 0.05). In metastatic melanoma, the expression levels of Bcl-2 and p53 were lower than those in their primary counterparts (P = 0.08 for each). Ki-67 expression showed no remarkable changes. It can be concluded that high p53 expression in tumour cells is associated with a poorer prognosis in primary melanoma, and high Bcl-2 expression in tumour cells is an adverse prognostic marker in intermediate-thickness primary melanoma.

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

4.2
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