4.6 Article

MUC1 core protein as a marker of gallbladder malignancy

期刊

EJSO
卷 31, 期 8, 页码 891-896

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2005.03.008

关键词

MUC1 core protein expression; gallbladder cancer; chronic cholecystitis; xanthogranulomatous chotecystitis; lymphatic vessel invasion

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: The significance of MUC1 expression in the gallbladder tissues in relation to cancer and non-cancer disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to clarify the significance of MUC1 expression. Materials and methods: A monoclonal antibody (CA 15-3; DF3) was applied to stain MUC1 core protein in surgical specimens. Results: MUC1 expression is significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in gallbladder cancer (69/88) compare to non-cancerous tissue, while, very trace in normal and inflammatory tissues. The expression rate was significantly lower (p < 0.0001) when the cancer did not penetrate the mucosal layer than when cancers did penetrate this layer. The MUC1 expression rate was (4/14) in T1 tumours, (11/14) in T4, (40/45) in T3, and (14/15) in T2, respectively. Every cell of normal, and inflammatory mucosa, and T1 cancers had the polarized pattern. The depolarized pattern was dominant in cancer Celts from the advanced tumours of T2, T3 and T4. That is, (45/74) of cancer cells from the mucosal layer and (58/74) of penetrating cancer cells in submucosal. layer had the depolarized pattern. There was no significant correllation of MUC1 expression rate and staining pattern with cancer differentiation and microscopic venous invasion. On the other hand, lymphatic vessel invasion was significantly correlated with the staining pattern but not with expression rate. Conclusion: MUC1 core protein expression rate and pattern are suggesting that MUC1 core protein would be a marker of malignant transformation of gallbladder epithelium and its depolarized expression would also be a marker of invasion of gallbladder cancer. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. 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