4.6 Article

GPC-1 may serve as a predictor of perineural invasion and a prognosticator of survival in pancreatic cancer

期刊

ASIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 36, 期 1, 页码 7-12

出版社

ELSEVIER SINGAPORE PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2012.08.001

关键词

GDNF; GPC-1; MMP-9; perineural invasion; pancreatic cancer

类别

资金

  1. Sci-Tech Project of Hunan Province of China [S2006F223]
  2. Hunan Provincial Natural Science Foundation [08JJ3071]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the expression of glial cell derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), glypican-1 (GPC-1), and matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9), and their association with clinicopathologic characteristics as well as prognostic significance in pancreatic cancer. Methods: Immunohistochemical assessment of GDNF, GPC-1, and MMP-9 was performed in 62 cases of surgically resected pancreatic cancer. Perineural invasion in pancreatic cancer was observed by marking nerve fiber with S-100, while 16 normal pancreatic tissues were used as normal control. Correlations of GDNF, GPC-1 and MMP-9 expressions with clinicopathologic parameters were analyzed. A survival analysis was performed to find the prognostic significance. Results: The expressions of GDNF, GPC-1 and MMP-9 in pancreatic cancer tissue were significantly higher than of those in normal pancreatic tissues (41/62 vs. 5/16 for GDNF, 35/62 vs. 2/16 for GPC-1, and 37/62 vs. 3/16 for MMP-9; p < 0.01, respectively). The overexpression of GDNF, GPC-1, and MMP-9 in pancreatic cancer tissue was significantly related to the perineural invasion (p < 0.05). Although the overexpression of these genes was related to poor survival, GPC-1 had an independent prognostic effect on overall survival. Conclusion: GPC-1 is significantly related to the perineural invasion of pancreatic cancer, holding some prognostic significance in patients with pancreatic cancer. Copyright (C) 2012, Asian Surgical Association. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. 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