Clinical implications and prognostic value of five biomarkers in endometrial carcinoma
- 117 Downloads
The aim was to identify the relationship between ER, PR, P53, Ki-67, PTEN, the association with clinicopathological parameters and the correlation with survival.
We studied 190 cases of primary endometrial carcinoma in which ER, PR, Ki-67, P53, PTEN antigens were investigated with the use of immunohistochemical methods. To evaluate the correlations among immunohistochemical staining and the age, menopause status, histological type, FIGO stage, grading, depth of invasion, lymph nodes involvement and serum tumor marker. Survival analysis was assessed within single and combined biomarkers types.
The percentage of Ki-67 and P53 positive endometrial tumors was significantly higher in ER negative vs ER positive tumors (both P = 0.000). The same trend was evident in PR positive and negative group. The percentage of PTEN positive tumors was significantly higher in PR positive versus PR negative tumors (P = 0.021) but was no difference in different ER status. ER and PR status were significant predictors with FIGO staging, grading and recurrence. There was no clear association between PTEN positivity and clinicopathological parameters except more relevance with endometrioid histotype (P = 0.013). Positive Ki-67 or P53 was found to be strictly related to more aggressive features. There was statistically significant difference in different status of P53 and Ki-67 in survival time.
ER and PR positive tumors showed a statistically significant association with better clinical outcome, PR has more significant influence on prognosis. The percentage of positive Ki-67 or P53 was significantly higher in hormone-independent group versus in hormone-dependent group and combined Ki-67 and P53 may have more effect on prognosis in former group.
Key wordendometrial carcinoma immunohistochemistry clinical factors biomarkers
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.Baak JP, Snijders W, van Diermen B, et al. Prospective multicenter validation confirms the prognostic superiority of the endometrial carcinoma prognostic index in international Federation of gynecology and obstetrics stage 1 and 2 endometrial carcinoma. J Clin Oncol, 2003, 21: 4214–4221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Yao YY, Xu WZ, Wang Y, et al. Relationships between the molecular biomarkers and the clinicopathologic features and prognosis in endometrial carcinoma. J Peking Univ (Chinese), 2011, 43: 743–748.Google Scholar
- 16.Pourzand A, Fakhree MB, Hashemzadeh S, et al. Hormone receptor status in breast cancer and its relation to age and other prognostic factors. Breast Cancer (Auckl), 2011, 5: 87–92.Google Scholar