4.4 Article

Ki-67 MIB1 labelling index and the prognosis of primary TaT1 urothelial cell carcinoma of the bladder

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 59, 期 1, 页码 83-88

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jcp.2004.022939

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To evaluate whether ki-67 labelling index (LI) has independent prognostic value for survival of patients with bladder urothelial tumours graded according to the 2004 World Health Organisation classification. Methods: Ki-67 LI was evaluated in 164 cases using the grid counting method. Non-invasive (stage Ta) tumours were: papilloma (n = 5), papillary urothelial neoplasia of low malignant potential (PUNLMP; n = 26), and low (LG; n = 34) or high grade (HG; n = 15) papillary urothelial carcinoma. Early invasive (stage T1) tumours were: LG (n = 58) and HG (n = 26) carcinoma. Statistical analysis included Fisher and chi(2) tests, and mean comparisons by ANOVA and t test. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed according to the Kaplan-Meier method with log rank test and Cox's proportional hazard method. Results: Mean ki-67 LI increased from papilloma to PUNLMP, LG, and HG in stage Ta (p < 0.0001) and from LG to HG in stage T1 (p = 0.013) tumours. High tumour proliferation ( > 13%) was related to greater tumour size (p = 0.036), recurrence (p = 0.036), progression (p = 0.035), survival (p = 0.054), and high p53 accumulation (p = 0.015). Ki-67 LI and tumour size were independent predictors of disease free survival (DFS), but only ki-67 LI was related to progression free survival (PFS). Cancer specific overall survival (OS) was related to ki-67 LI, tumour size, and p27kip1 downregulation. Ki-67 LI was the main independent predictor of DFS (p = 0.0005), PFS (p = 0.0162), and cancer specific OS (p = 00195). Conclusion: Tumour proliferation measured by Ki-67 LI is related to tumour recurrence, stage progression, and is an independent predictor of DFS, PFS, and cancer specific OS in TaT1 bladder urothelial cell carcinoma.

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

4.4
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