4.6 Article

Clinical outcomes of muscle invasive bladder Cancer according to the BASQ classification

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-6042-1

关键词

Basal cell; Immunohistochemistry; Molecular subtype; Neoplasm metastasis; Squamous cell; Urinary bladder neoplasms

类别

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government (MSIP) [2016R1A2B4011623]
  2. 2015 Korean Urologic Oncology Society Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background We evaluated the clinical efficacy and prognosis of muscle-invasive bladder cancer according to the basal/squamous-like (BASQ) classification system based on immunohistochemical staining [CK5/6(+), CK14(+), GATA3(-), and FOXA1(-)]. Methods One hundred patients diagnosed with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (cT2-4 N0-3 M0) were included in the study. All patients underwent radical cystectomy after transurethral removal of bladder tumor. Immunostaining was performed for CK5/6, CK14, FOXA1, and GATA3 antibodies on tissue microarray slides, and expression patterns were quantitatively analyzed using a scanning program. Results The median follow-up time was 77.4 (interquartile range: 39-120.9) months. The mean age of the patients was 65.1 +/- 11.2 years. FOXA1 or CK14 expression greater than 1% was respectively positively and negatively correlated with overall survival (OS; p = 0.011 and p = 0.042, respectively), cancer-specific survival (CSS; p = 0.050 for both), and recurrence-free survival (RFS; p = 0.018 and p = 0.040, respectively). For CK5/6+ and GATA3- or FOXA1- expression, 10% CK5/6+ cells were negatively correlated with OS (p = 0.032 and p = 0.039, respectively) and with RFS in combination with FOXA1- only (p = 0.050). Conclusions In this study, CK14 expression was associated with a poor prognosis. The new classification system of bladder cancer based on molecular characteristics is expected to helpful tool for the establishment of personalized treatment strategies and associated prediction of therapeutic responses.

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

4.6
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