4.4 Article

Stromal nitric oxide synthase (NOS) expression correlates with the grade of mammary phyllodes tumour

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 58, 期 6, 页码 600-604

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jcp.2004.023028

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Nitric oxide synthase ( NOS), particularly endothelial and inducible forms (e/i-NOS), are expressed in various cancers, including breast cancer. In mammary fibroepithelial lesions, NOS expression in stromal cells has been reported to be lower in fibroadenomas than in phyllodes tumours. Aims: To investigate NOS expression in phyllodes tumours of varying degrees of malignancy. Methods: One hundred and sixty seven mammary phyllodes tumours ( 97 benign, 47 borderline malignant, and 23 frankly malignant) were evaluated for e-NOS and i-NOS expression by immunohistochemistry. Correlations with previously reported expression of stromal vascular growth factor ( VEGF) and microvessel density were also performed. Results: Stromal expression of e-NOS was absent, weak, moderate, and strong in 43%, 31%, 13%, and 13% of benign tumours; 17%, 26%, 13%, and 44% of borderline malignant tumours; and 17%, 35%, 13%, and 35% of frankly malignant tumours, respectively. Stromal expression of i-NOS was 77%, 18%, 4%, and 1% in benign tumours; 42%, 28%, 19%, and 11% in borderline malignant tumours; and 43%, 13%, 26%, and 18% in frankly malignant tumours, respectively. Stromal expression of both i- NOS and e-NOS was significantly different between the benign and malignant ( borderline and frank) groups of phyllodes tumours ( p< 0.0001). Furthermore, the expression of i- NOS correlated with stromal VEGF expression and microvessel density. The expression of NOS in the epithelial cells was strong, and showed no differences between the different groups of tumours. Conclusions: Higher stromal expression of NOS in phyllodes tumours is associated with malignancy, suggesting a possible role in malignant progression, particularly metastasising potential.

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

4.4
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