4.4 Review

Loss of Bcl-2 expression in colon cancer: A prognostic factor for recurrence in stage II colon cancer

期刊

SURGICAL ONCOLOGY-OXFORD
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 357-365

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.suronc.2008.09.003

关键词

Colon cancer; Prognosis; Bcl-2; Immunohistochemistry; Tumour relapse

资金

  1. Cancerotogy Clinical Research Committee
  2. Institut Paoli Calmettes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To evaluate the prognostic value of immunohistochemical expression of Bcl-2 in colon cancers. Patients and methods: Two hundred and twenty-six resected and paraffin-embedded colon carcinomas were analysed by immunostaining using monoclonal antibodies for Bcl-2. We evaluated whether the Bcl-2 staining patterns, semi-quantitatively assessed, could be correlated with the pTNM stage, size and tumour circumference, differentiation, appearance, vascular invasion, perineural invasion, colloid component, margins, involvement of adjacent structures, stromal appearance, flow cytometry and the S-phase. Results: Eighty patients (36%) were considered Bcl-2 positive. The extent of Bcl-2 expression by tumour cells decreased significantly with respect to increasing tumour size (P = 0.042), the extension of parietal. invasion pT (P 0.007), the invasive nature of the tumour (P = 0.024), and extent of the circumference (P = 0.024). In a multivariate analysis, Bcl-2 expression does not appear as an independent prognosis factor in the overall population as in the 166 patients with optimal resection. Of the 59 stage II patients, using univariate analysis, Bcl-2 appears to be predictive of relapse-free survival (P = 0.025) but not of overall survival (P = 0.09). Conclusion: The loss of Bcl-2 expression appears to be correlated with increase in number of relapses in the stage II colon cancers and could be a potential useful additional histo-prognostic marker in therapy decision making. Bcl-2 immunodetection seems to be associated with slower local tumour growth. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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