4.7 Article

Clinical significance of p21 expression in non-small-cell lung cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 20, 期 18, 页码 3865-3871

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2002.09.147

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The clinical significance of p21 expression remains unclear, whereas many experimental studies have demonstrated that p21, the product of the WAF1/CIP1/SDI1 I gene, plays an important role in regulation of the cell cycle as an inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases. The purpose of this study was to clarify the clinical significance in resected non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and Methods: A total of 233 consecutive patients with completely resected pathologic stage I to IIIA NSCLC were retrospectively reviewed. Expression of p21 and the status of p53 were examined immunohistochemically. Proliferative activity was also evaluated immunohistochemically. The incidence of apoptotic cell death was evaluated by terminal deoxynuclectidyl transferase-mediated deoxyuridine triphosphate-biotin nick end-labeling staining. Results: Expression of p21 was positive in 120 patients (51.5%). The 5-year survival rate of p21-positive patients was 73.8%, significantly higher than that of p21-negative patients (60.7%; P = .006). Aberrant expression of p53 was positive in 98 patients (42.1%). When combined with p53 status, the prognostic value of p2l status was enhanced: the 5-year survival rate of p21-positive and p53-negative patients was 80.7%, markedly higher than that of p21-negative and p53-positive patients (50.0% for both; P = .001). Multivariate analysis confirmed that positive expression of p21 was a significant factor for predicting a favorable prognosis. There was no significant correlation between p21 expression and p53 status, proliferative activity, or incidence of apoptosis. Conclusion: p21 expression was shown to be an independent prognostic factor in NSCLC. (C) 2002 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

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