4.6 Article

Hypoxia-inducible factor and mammalian target of rapamycin pathway markers in urothelial carcinoma of the bladder: possible therapeutic implications

期刊

BJU INTERNATIONAL
卷 107, 期 5, 页码 844-849

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09517.x

关键词

bladder carcinoma; hypoxia-inducible factor; immunohistochemistry; mammalian target of rapamycin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To investigate the rationale for using targeted therapies against hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathways in urothelial carcinoma of the bladder, by studying the immunohistochemical expression of molecules of these pathways in urothelial carcinoma, as recent pre-clinical studies and clinical trials have shown the potential utility of such targeted therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS Immunohistochemical stains were performed on a tissue microarray prepared from 92 cases of >= pT2 urothelial (transitional cell) carcinoma of bladder, using antibodies against HIF-1 alpha and VEGF-R2, and phospho-S6 and phospho-4E BP1, molecules of HIF and activated mTOR pathways, respectively. Immunoreactivity was graded from 0 to 3 + (0, 0-5%; 1 +, 6-25%; 2 +, 26-50%; 3 +, > 50% tumour cells positive). RESULTS In all, 58, 34, 35 and 17% of the tumours showed grade 2-3+ expression of phospho-4E BP1, phospho-S6, HIF-1 alpha and VEGF-R2, respectively. Moderate correlation for immunoreactivity was observed between molecules within the same pathway [(phospho-4E BP1 with phospho-S6 (rho = 0.411), and HIF-1 alpha with VEGF-R2 (rho = 0.265)], but not between molecules across pathways. CONCLUSIONS Urothelial carcinomas of the bladder express molecules of the HIF and mTOR pathways, providing a rationale for clinical trials evaluating agents targeting these pathways. Correlation between molecules within the same pathway, and not across pathways, suggests that investigating the usefulness of a specific targeted agent might benefit from pre-treatment evaluation of pathway marker expression.

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