4.1 Article

Differential Immunohistochemical Expression of CD44s, E-Cadherin and β-Catenin among Hyperplastic and Neoplastic Lesions of the Prostate Gland

Journal

UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS
Volume 90, Issue 1, Pages 109-116

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000345057

Keywords

CD44s; E-cadherin; beta-Catenin; Immunohistochemistry; Prostate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: CD44s, E-cadherin and beta-catenin are cell adhesion molecules (CAMs) and appear to influence organ development, inflammation, cancer invasion and metastasis. We studied the expression of these CAMs in prostate cancer (PCa), high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and nodular adenomatous hyperplasia (NH). Materials and Methods: 135 paraffin blocks of radical prostatectomy specimens were assessed. CAMs were determined by immunohistochemistry. All sections included PCa, HGPIN and NH. The expression was semiquantitatively evaluated in three scores (1+, 2+, 3+). The markers' immunopositivity was statistically investigated with Gleason score and TNM stage. Results and Conclusions: CD44s had score 3+ in 41.5, 46.7 and 37.8% of areas with NH, HGPIN and PCa, respectively. E-cadherin immunostaining was highly detected in 71.1, 78.5 and 63.0% of NH, HGPIN and PCa areas while beta-catenin score 3+ was exclusively membranous in 80.7% of NH and nuclear/cytoplasmic in 70.4 and 48.9% of HGPIN and PCa areas. No marker related to the Gleason score (p = 0.352). CD44s and E-cadherin expression was inversely associated with TNM stage (p = 0.021 and p = 0.042, respectively); no such association was observed for beta-catenin (p = 0.556). The decreased expression of CD44s and E-cadherin is probably associated with the invasive potential of PCa. The beta-catenin staining pattern in neoplastic lesions, either preinvasive or invasive, differs from that in non-neoplastic prostate lesions. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available