4.5 Article

Expression of Focal Adhesion Kinase in Patients With Endometrial Cancer A Clinicopothologic Study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER
Volume 19, Issue 7, Pages 1221-1225

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181b33c61

Keywords

Focal adhesion kinase; Endometrial cancer; Tyrosine kinase; Survival

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The pp 125 focal adhesion kinase (FAK) plays a pivotal role in tumor cell signaling. Focal adhesion kinase expression has been linked to tumor cell proliferation, invasion, and metastasis, but data on endometrial cancer are inconclusive. Methods: We assess FAK expression by immunohistochemistry in endometrial cancer for its value to predict patient prognosis. Results: Of 134 endometrial cancer cases, 120 (89%) revealed moderate and strong expressions of FAK, whereas weak expression was found in 14 (11%) tumors. Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated a clear trend toward improved survival rates for patients with endometrial carcinomas weakly expressing FAK, and notably, there was neither lymph node metastasis nor tumor-related death in this patient subgroup. Increased, expression of FAK correlated with higher histological tumor grade (P = 0.002), lymphatic vascular space invasion (P = 0.003), and vascular space invasion (P = 0.02). Significant prognostic survival variables were tumor stage (P < 0.01), histological type (P < 0.01), tumor grade (P = 0.028), and pelvic lymph node status (P = 0.035). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified histological tumor grade as a significant independent predictor of patient survival (hazards ratio, 2.71; P = 0.03). Conclusions: Further studies are warranted to elucidate whether FAK expression analysis is a Suitable tool in stratifying patients at different risks of disease progress, and wether FAK might become a new molecular target for endometrial anticancer therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available