4.4 Article

A High Proliferative Index of Recurrent Melanoma Is Associated with Worse Survival

期刊

ONCOLOGY
卷 80, 期 3-4, 页码 181-187

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000328518

关键词

Melanoma; Prognosis; Recurrence; Ki-67 antigen; Disease-free survival

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute Cancer Center [5 P30 CA 016087-27]
  2. Marc Jacobs Campaign
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P30CA016087] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Previous melanoma studies evaluating prognostic factors of survival at recurrence have focused on primary tumor characteristics and clinical variables at first recurrence. We examined the prognostic relevance of recurrent tumor proliferation. Methods: 114 melanoma patients with available recurrent tissues who were prospectively enrolled at New York University Medical Center were studied. Standard of care prognostic variables (e.g. stage at initial diagnosis and lactate dehydrogenase level) and recurrent tissue expression of proliferative marker Ki-67 were evaluated for their association with overall survival. Results: High Ki-67 expression was observed in 57 (50%) of the 114 recurrent melanomas. On univariate analysis, the median overall survival of patients whose recurrent tumors overexpressed Ki-67 was significantly shorter than that of patients whose recurrent tumors had low Ki-67 expression (3.6 vs. 9.5 years, p = 0.03). On multivariate analysis, a high proliferative index of the recurrent melanoma remained an independent predictor of worse overall survival, controlling for stage at initial diagnosis, disease-free survival, and stage at first recurrence [HR = 2.09 (95% CI 1.24-3.54), p = 0.006]. Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the prognostic relevance of tumor proliferation in recurrent melanoma patients. Data also support restratification of risk assessment upon recurrence that considers tumor biology in addition to clinical variables evaluated as part of the standard of care. Copyright (C) 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel

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