4.6 Article

Discerning malignancy in adrenocortical tumors: are molecular markers useful?

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 145, 期 3, 页码 335-341

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/eje.0.1450335

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC is a rare neoplasm with poor prognosis. Discerning ACCs from benign adenomas histologically may be difficult if invasion into surrounding tissues or metastases are missing. Design: In order to establish molecular markers for malignancy, we analyzed seven normal adrenals, three massive macronodular ACTH-independent adrenocortical hyperplasias (MMAHs), 30 adrenocortical adenomas (ACAs) and ten ACCs. Methods: All tissues were studied for the presence of alterations in the p53 tumor suppressor gene using the PAb 1801 antibody, which detects mutant p53 protein and the pYNZ22 microsatellite marker to show loss of heterozygosity (LOH) at 17p, for expression of the proliferation-associated antigen Ki67 using the MIB1 antibody, for the rate of apoptotic tumor cells with the TdT-mediated dUTP biotin nick end labeling (TUNEL) method, and for LOH of 11q13 (menin gene locus) with the D11S956 microsatellite marker. Results: 0/3 MMAH, 1/28 ACA and 3/10 ACC revealed immunopositive staining for p53. LOH for pYNZ22 was observed in 1/3 MMAH, 1/23 informative ACA and 6/6 informative ACC. The rate of apoptotic cells was significantly higher in ACC (P < 0.0001 by A-NOVA) than in ACA but there was some overlap between groups. The Ki67 index (% immunopositive cells) was 1.9 +/- 1.30% (mean +/- S.D.) in normal adrenals, 3.47 +/- 1.37% in MMAH, and 2.11 +/- 1.01% in ACA. ACC had the highest Ki67 index of 11.94 +/- 7.58% distinguishing all ACC from the ACA and MMAH studied with a cut-off level of 5%. LOH for 11q13 was detected in 2/3 MMAH, 5/26 ACA and 6/8 ACC. Conclusions: We conclude that a Ki67 index above 5% is a sensitive and specific indicator of ACC and may be useful in the differentiation of adenomas from carcinomas.

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