4.6 Article

The possible role of p53 and bcl-2 expression in cervical carcinomas and their premalignant lesions

期刊

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
卷 77, 期 1, 页码 129-136

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1006/gyno.1999.5715

关键词

p53; bcl-2; cervix; carcinogenesis; immunohistochemistry; prognosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. The purpose of this study was to assess the expression and clinical significance of bcl-2 and p53 in the progression of cervical neoplasias. Methods. One hundred seventy-one cervical specimens, consisting of normal cervical epithelium (n = 13), lesions with histological features of HPV infection (n = 14), CIN (cervical intraepithelial neoplasia) lesions (n = 63), and cervical carcinomas (n 81) were examined immunohistochemically in paraffin sections. Results. Twenty-three specimens showed p53 expression [3/20 (15%) CIN III, 18/63 (29%) ISCC (invasive squamous cervical carcinoma), and 2/18 (11%) adenocarcinomas] while 63 cases expressed the bcl-2 gene [10/13 (77%) normal, 0/14(0%) condylomas, 6/23 (26%) CIN I, 9/20 (45%) CIN II, 15/20 (75%) CIN III, 18/63 (29%) ISCC, and 5/18 (28%) adenocarcinomas]. The expression of bcl-2 was found to increase in direct relation to the grade of CIN (P = 0.02) whereas such a trend was not observed for p53. p53 was not detected in normal or premalignant lesions (except 3 out of 20 cases of CIN III). There was no significant correlation between the expression of p53 and the histological type of cervical carcinoma, even though expression of p53 was higher in ISCC than in adenocarcinomas (29% vs 11%, respectively). In cervical cancer patients, expression of bcl-2 was correlated to a greater than 5-year survival (P < 0.01) while no prognostic significance of p53 expression was found. Conclusion. Evaluation of bcl-2 expression may provide additional and independent prognostic information for the clinical course of the disease and therefore to be developed as a prognostic indicator for cervical cancer. (C) 2000 Academic Press.

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