4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Bcl-2 is a useful prognostic marker in Dukes' B colon cancer

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 533-537

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1245/aso.2001.8.6.533

关键词

apoptosis; colon cancer; prognosis; Bcl-2; Dukes' B

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Currently, the use of adjuvant therapy specifically in Dukes' B colon cancers is controversial, emphasizing the importance of identifying prognostic markers to select patients for such therapy. Bcl-2 plays an important role in apoptosis regulation of solid tumors, such as colon and breast cancer, and is normally expressed in the base of the colonic crypts. The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not bcl-2 expression can be used to predict survival in Dukes' B colon cancer patients. Methods: Charts of 76 patients operated on at the Royal Victoria Hospital from 1986 to 1992 were reviewed. Bcl-2 staining was done with the avidin-biotin-peroxidase complex method using commercially available monoclonal bcl-2 antibodies. Two pathologists graded the intensity of bcl-2 staining on a scale of 0-3 and estimated the percentage of tumor cells staining positively (T-percent). Univariate and multiple regression of factors on overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) was done with a Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan-Meier survival curves. Results: The mean age was 71.2 years, with 41 female and 35 male patients. Mean tumor size was 5.4 cm with tumor grades of 19 well, 52 moderate, and 5 poorly differentiated. Tumors expressing bcl-2 had a similar DFS (P =.14) but a significantly improved OS (P =.04) compared with the bcl-2 negative tumors. The risk ratio for DFS was 0.49 (95% CI, 0.19-1.26) and for OS was 0.35 (95% CI, 0.13-0.94). Conclusions: These data indicate that enhanced bcl-2 expression, specifically in Dukes' B colon carcinomas, is associated with improved survival. Thus, patients whose tumors do not express bcl-2 should be considered for adjuvant therapy.

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