4.7 Article

Expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in tumour and stroma compartments in cervical cancer: clinical implications

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 87, 期 10, 页码 1145-1152

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600578

关键词

cervical cancer; COX-2; prognosis; chemotherapy response

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims at investigating the relationship between cyclooxygenase-2 expression in tumour vs stroma inflammatory compartment and its possible clinical role. The study included 99 stage IB-IV cervical cancer patients: immunostaining of tumour tissue sections was performed with rabbit antiserum against cyclooxygenase-2. CD3, CD4, CD8, CD25, Mast Cell Tryptase monoclonal antibodies were used to characterise stroma inflammatory cells in nine cervical tumours. An inverse relation was found between cyclooxygenase-2 levels (cyclooxygenase-2 IDV) of tumour vs stroma compartment (r=-0.44, P<0.0001). The percentage of cases showing high tumour/stromal cyclooxygenase-2 IDV ratio was significantly higher in patients who did not respond to treatment (93.3%) with respect to patients with partial (60.5%), and complete (43.7%) response (P=0.009). Cases with a high tumour/stroma cyclooxygenase-2 IDV ratio had a shorter overall survival rate than cases with a low tumour/stroma cyclooxygenase-2 IDV (P<0.0001). In the multivariate analysis advanced stage and the status of tumour/stroma cyclooxygenase-2 IDV ratio retained an independent negative prognostic role. The proportion of CD3(+), CD4(+), and CD25(+) cells was significantly lower in tumours with high tumour/stroma cyclooxygenase-2 IDV ratio, while a higher percentage of mast cells was detected in tumours showing high tumour/stroma cyclooxygenase-2 IDV ratio. Our study showed the usefulness of assessing cyclooxygenase-2 status both in tumour and stroma compartment in order to identify cervical cancer patients endowed with a very poor chance of response to neoadjuvant therapy and unfavourable prognosis. (C) 2002 Cancer Research UK.

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

4.7
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