4.4 Article

Microarray gene expression and immunohistochemistry analyses of adrenocortical tumors identify IGF2 and Ki-67 as useful in differentiating carcinomas from adenomas

期刊

ENDOCRINE-RELATED CANCER
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 573-583

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1677/ERC-08-0237

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [511996]
  2. New South Wales Cancer Institute [05/RSA/1-02]
  3. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons
  4. Vision Biosystems (Mount Waverley, Victoria, Australia)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The management of adrenocortical tumors (ACTS) is complex. The Weiss score is the present most widely used system for ACT diagnosis. An ACT is scored from 0 to 9, with a higher score correlating with increased malignancy. However, ACTS with a score of 3 can be phenotypically benign or malignant. Our objective is to use microarray profiling of a cohort of adrenocortical carcinomas (ACCs) and adrenocortical adenomas (ACAs) to identify discriminatory genes that could be used as an adjunct to the Weiss score A cohort of Weiss score defined ACCs and ACAs were profiled using Affymetrix HGU133plus2.0 genechips. Genes with high-discriminatory power were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses and confirmed by quantitative real-time reverse transcription PCR and immunohistochemistry (IHC) The expression of IGF2, MAD2L1, and CCNB1 were significantly higher in ACCs compared with ACAs while ABLIM1, NAV3, SEPT4, and RPRM were significantly lower. Several proteins, including IGF2, MAD2L1, CCNB1, and Ki-67 had high-diagnostic accuracy in differentiating ACCs from ACAs. The best results, however, were obtained with a combination of IGF2 and Ki-67, with 96% sensitivity and 100% specificity in diagnosing ACCs. Microarray gene expression profiling accurately differentiates ACCs from ACAs The combination of IGF2 and Ki-67 IHC is also highly accurate in distinguishing between the two groups and is particularly helpful in ACTS with Weiss score of 3.

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