4.5 Article

Insulinoma-associated protein 1 is a prognostic biomarker in pulmonary high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 122, Issue 2, Pages 243-253

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jso.25960

Keywords

immunostaining; insulinoma-associated protein 1; large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma; neuroendocrine markers; small cell lung carcinoma

Funding

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [JP18K08782]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Backgrounds and Objectives Recent studies have suggested that insulinoma-associated protein 1 (INSM1) is a useful marker for pathological diagnosis of pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors. In the present study, we investigated the association between INSM1 expression and prognosis in patients with pulmonary high-grade neuroendocrine carcinomas (HGNEC) and assessed the usefulness of INSM1 as a prognostic biomarker in these patients. Methods Seventy-five consecutive patients with HGNEC who underwent complete surgical resections from January 2000 to December 2018 were enrolled in this study. We classified these patients into two groups: the INSM1-positive group (n = 59) and INSM1-negative group (n = 16). We compared the clinicopathological characteristics, overall survival (OS), and recurrence-free survival (RFS) between the groups. In addition, we performed univariate and multivariate analyses to identify the prognostic factors associated with postoperative survival. Results Significant differences in tumor diameter and vascular invasion between the groups were found. OS and RFS were significantly poorer in the INSM1-positive group than in the INSM1-negative group. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that INSM1 expression was the strongest predictor of poor prognosis for OS and RFS. Conclusions INSM1 expression had the greatest influence on the prognosis in patients with HGNEC and may be a prognostic biomarker in these patients.

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