BMC cancer · 2018
The alterations of cytokeratin and vimentin protein expressions in primary esophageal spindle cell carcinoma.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Li Xin Min, Song Xin, Zhao Xue Ke, Hu Shou Jia, Cheng Rang, Lv Shuang, Du Dan Feng, Zhang Xiang Yang, Lu Jian Liang, Ku Jian Wei, Zhang Dong Yun, Zhang Yao, Fan Zong Min, Wang Li Dong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The accumulated evidence has indicated the diagnostic role of cytokeratin (CK) and vimentin protein immunoassay in primary esophageal spindle cell carcinoma (PESC), which is a rare malignant tumor with epithelial and spindle components. However, it is largely unknown for the expression of CK and vimentin in pathological changes and prognosis of PESC.
METHODS: Eighty-two PESC patients were identified from the esophageal and gastric cardia cancer database established by Henan Key Laboratory for Esophageal Cancer Research of Zhengzhou University. We retrospectively evaluated CK and vimentin protein expressions in PESC. Clinicopathological features were examined by means of univariate and multivariate survival analyses. Furthermore, the co-expression value of cytokeratin and vimentin was analyzed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
RESULTS: The positive pan-cytokeratins AE1/AE3 (AE1/AE3 for short) staining was chiefly observed in cytoplasm of epithelial component tumor cells, with a positive detection rate of 85.4% (70/82). Interestingly, 19 cases showed AE1/AE3 positive staining both in epithelial and spindle components (23.2%). However, AE1/AE3 expression was not observed with any significant association with age, gender, tumor location, gross appearance, lymph node metastasis and TNM stage. Furthermore, AE1/AE3 protein expression does not show any effect on survival. Similar results were observed for vimentin immunoassay. However, in comparison with a single protein, the predictive power of AE1/AE3 and vimentin proteins signature was increased apparently than with single signature [0.75 (95% CI = 0.68-0.82) with single protein v.s. 0.89 (95% CI = 0.85-0.94) with AE1/AE3 and vimentin proteins]. The 1-, 3-, 5- and 7-year survival rates for PESC patients in this study were 79.3%, 46.3%, 28.0% and 15.9%, respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated age and TNM stage were independent prognostic factors for overall survival (P = 0.036 and 0.003, respectively). It is noteworthy that only 17.1% patients had a PESC accurate diagnosis by biopsy pathology before surgery (14/82). 72.4% PESC patients with biopsy pathology before surgery had been diagnosed as squamous cell carcinoma.
CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that cytokeratin and vimentin protein immunoassay is a useful biomarker for PESC accurate diagnosis, but not prognosis. The co-expression of cytokeratin and vimentin in both epithelial and spindle components suggest the possibility of single clone origination for PESC.
METHODS: Eighty-two PESC patients were identified from the esophageal and gastric cardia cancer database established by Henan Key Laboratory for Esophageal Cancer Research of Zhengzhou University. We retrospectively evaluated CK and vimentin protein expressions in PESC. Clinicopathological features were examined by means of univariate and multivariate survival analyses. Furthermore, the co-expression value of cytokeratin and vimentin was analyzed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
RESULTS: The positive pan-cytokeratins AE1/AE3 (AE1/AE3 for short) staining was chiefly observed in cytoplasm of epithelial component tumor cells, with a positive detection rate of 85.4% (70/82). Interestingly, 19 cases showed AE1/AE3 positive staining both in epithelial and spindle components (23.2%). However, AE1/AE3 expression was not observed with any significant association with age, gender, tumor location, gross appearance, lymph node metastasis and TNM stage. Furthermore, AE1/AE3 protein expression does not show any effect on survival. Similar results were observed for vimentin immunoassay. However, in comparison with a single protein, the predictive power of AE1/AE3 and vimentin proteins signature was increased apparently than with single signature [0.75 (95% CI = 0.68-0.82) with single protein v.s. 0.89 (95% CI = 0.85-0.94) with AE1/AE3 and vimentin proteins]. The 1-, 3-, 5- and 7-year survival rates for PESC patients in this study were 79.3%, 46.3%, 28.0% and 15.9%, respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated age and TNM stage were independent prognostic factors for overall survival (P = 0.036 and 0.003, respectively). It is noteworthy that only 17.1% patients had a PESC accurate diagnosis by biopsy pathology before surgery (14/82). 72.4% PESC patients with biopsy pathology before surgery had been diagnosed as squamous cell carcinoma.
CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that cytokeratin and vimentin protein immunoassay is a useful biomarker for PESC accurate diagnosis, but not prognosis. The co-expression of cytokeratin and vimentin in both epithelial and spindle components suggest the possibility of single clone origination for PESC.