4.4 Article

Cytokeratin Expression Profiling in Gastric Carcinoma: Clinicopathologic Significance and Comparison with Tumor-Associated Molecules

期刊

PATHOBIOLOGY
卷 79, 期 3, 页码 154-161

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000335694

关键词

Gastric cancer; Cytokeratin; Mucin phenotype; Tumor-associated molecules

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Science, Sports and Technology of Japan
  2. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23790401] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The expressions of cytokeratin (CK) 7 and 20 have been studied in various primary and metastatic carcinomas, and their determination may help distinguish the site of origin of metastatic carcinomas. However, little is known about the molecular basis that determines variations in CK patterns in gastric cancers (GCs). The aim of the present study was to analyze the CK expression patterns in a large number of GCs and to investigate how the CK patterns correlate with clinicopathologic parameters, histology, mucin phenotype or several tumor-related molecules. Methods and Results: We immunohistochemically examined the CK7/CK20 patterns, mucin expression profiles (MUC5AC, MUC6, MUC2 and CD10), and the cancer-related molecules (CDX2, p53, EGFR and beta-catenin), using a tissue microarray with 870 GCs. The GCs were divided into four patterns; 17% of CK7+/CK20+, 57% of CK7+/CK20-, 9% of CK7-/CK20+ and 17% of CK7-/CK20. GCs with the CK7-/CK20- pattern demonstrated a close relation to undifferentiated adenocarcinoma. CK7 expression was significantly correlated with the expression of MUC5AC and MUC6, while CK20 expression was correlated with MUC2 and CDX2. There were statistically significant associations between CK expression patterns and mucin phenotypes. Conclusion: These results indicate that the CK7/CK20 expression patterns in GCs demonstrated different clinicopathologic features and molecular signatures. Copyright (C) 2012 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