4.7 Article

Membranous expression of podocalyxin-like protein is an independent factor of poor prognosis in urothelial bladder cancer

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 108, Issue 11, Pages 2321-2328

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.215

Keywords

podocalyxin-like protein; urothelial bladder cancer; prognosis

Categories

Funding

  1. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  2. Swedish Cancer Society
  3. Gunnar Nilsson Cancer Foundation, Region Skane
  4. Research Funds of Skane University Hospital

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Membranous expression of the anti-adhesive glycoprotein podocalyxin-like (PODXL) has previously been found to correlate with poor prognosis in several major cancer forms. Here we examined the prognostic impact of PODXL expression in urothelial bladder cancer. Methods: Immunohistochemical PODXL expression was examined in tissue microarrays with tumours from two independent cohorts of patients with urothelial bladder cancer: n = 100 (Cohort I) and n = 343 (Cohort II). The impact of PODXL expression on disease-specific survival (DSS; Cohort II), 5-year overall survival (OS; both cohorts) and 2-year progression-free survival (PFS; Cohort II) was assessed. Results: Membranous PODXL expression was significantly associated with more advanced tumour (T) stage and high-grade tumours in both cohorts, and a significantly reduced 5-year OS (unadjusted HR = 2.25 in Cohort I and 3.10 in Cohort II, adjusted HR = 2.05 in Cohort I and 2.18 in Cohort II) and DSS (unadjusted HR = 4.36, adjusted HR = 2.70). In patients with Ta and T1 tumours, membranous PODXL expression was an independent predictor of a reduced 2-year PFS (unadjusted HR = 6.19, adjusted HR = 4.60) and DSS (unadjusted HR = 8.34, adjusted HR = 7.16). Conclusion: Membranous PODXL expression is an independent risk factor for progressive disease and death in patients with urothelial bladder cancer.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available