4.2 Article

Association of cortactin, fascin-1 and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression in ovarian carcinomas: Correlation with clinicopathological parameters

期刊

DISEASE MARKERS
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 17-26

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2008/284382

关键词

cortactin; fascin-1; EGFR; immunostaining score; ovarian carcinomas

资金

  1. Tri-Service General Hospital [TSGH-C97-4-S05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cortactin, fascin-1 and EGFR are recognized as important factors in tumor progression. We tested the hypothesis that cortactin, fascin-1 and EGFR expression correlates with clinicopathological parameters of the four most common ovarian surface epithelial carcinomas - serous cystadenocarcinoma, mucinous cystadenocarcinoma, endometrioid adenocarcinoma, and clear cell carcinoma. Immunohistochemical analysis of cortactin, fascin-1 and EGFR was performed using tissue microarrays of 172 specimens comprising 69 serous cystadenocarcinomas, 44 mucinous cystadenocarcinomas, 45 endometrioid adenocarcinomas and 14 clear cell carcinomas. All ovarian carcinomas showed significant expression of cortactin, fascin-1 and EGFR in staining intensity, tumor percentages and immunostaining scores. In addition, higher immunostaining scores of fascin-1 correlated with more advanced cancer stages (TNM), poorer histological differentiation and poorer survival rate of mucinous cystadenocarcinoma. Similarly, higher immunostaining scores of cortactin correlated with T stages and histological differentiation of serous cystadenocarcinoma. The immunostaining scores of EGFR did not correlate with TNM stages, tumor differentiation or prognosis in the four ovarian surface epithelial carcinomas. Our findings suggest that cortactin and fascin-1 may serve as good biomarkers in evaluating aggressiveness of ovarian serous and mucinous cystadenocarcinoma. And the pharmacological inhibitors of fascin-1 activity may slow down tumor progression and prolong survival time in patients with mucinous cystadenocarcinoma.

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

4.2
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