European journal of dentistry · 2015
Expression of E-cadherin in normal oral mucosa, in oral precancerous lesions and in oral carcinomas.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sridevi Ugrappa, Jain Ajay, Nagalaxmi Velpula, Kumar Ugrappa Vijay, Goyal Stuti
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the expression of E-cad in oral precancerous lesions and conditions and oral carcinomas in comparison with normal mucosa.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total of 50 samples were selected for the study and were categorized into five groups and 10 samples in each group as Group I-oral leukoplakia (OL), Group II-oral lichen planus (OLP), Group III-oral submucous fibrosis (OSMF), Group IV-oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and Group V-normal oral mucosa (NOM) as control group. All the samples were assessed for the expression of E-cad by immunohistochemical study.
RESULTS: Upon assessing the expression of E-cad in OL, OSMF, OLP and OSCC, as majority of the samples with OSCC (90%), OL (80%), OLP (70%) and OSMF (60%) showed mild to moderate expression of E-cad staining, which was suggestive of reduction in dysplastic cells on comparison to NOM cells. This difference in expression and variation of E-cad upon comparison with normal mucosa was statistically significant (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: There is significant (P < 0.001) variation of expression of E-cad with the histopathological dysplasia of the oral precancerous lesions and conditions, and the tumor differentiation of the oral cancers. However, there was no correlation of the degree of loss of expression of E-cad with the degree of dysplasia or the tumor differentiation of oral cancers. We conclude with our study that, there is a variation in the expression of E-cad but its value as a prognostic marker is questionable.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total of 50 samples were selected for the study and were categorized into five groups and 10 samples in each group as Group I-oral leukoplakia (OL), Group II-oral lichen planus (OLP), Group III-oral submucous fibrosis (OSMF), Group IV-oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and Group V-normal oral mucosa (NOM) as control group. All the samples were assessed for the expression of E-cad by immunohistochemical study.
RESULTS: Upon assessing the expression of E-cad in OL, OSMF, OLP and OSCC, as majority of the samples with OSCC (90%), OL (80%), OLP (70%) and OSMF (60%) showed mild to moderate expression of E-cad staining, which was suggestive of reduction in dysplastic cells on comparison to NOM cells. This difference in expression and variation of E-cad upon comparison with normal mucosa was statistically significant (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: There is significant (P < 0.001) variation of expression of E-cad with the histopathological dysplasia of the oral precancerous lesions and conditions, and the tumor differentiation of the oral cancers. However, there was no correlation of the degree of loss of expression of E-cad with the degree of dysplasia or the tumor differentiation of oral cancers. We conclude with our study that, there is a variation in the expression of E-cad but its value as a prognostic marker is questionable.