Archives of medical science : AMS · 2018
Klotho expression and nodal involvement as predictive factors for large cell lung carcinoma.
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.
Brominska Barbara, Gabryel Piotr, Jarmołowska-Jurczyszyn Donata, Janicka-Jedyńska Małgorzata, Kluk Andrzej, Trojanowski Maciej, Brajer-Luftmann Beata, Woliński Kosma, Czepczyński Rafał, Gut Paweł, Bromiński Gabriel, Majewski Przemysław, Dyszkiewicz Wojciech, Ruchała Marek
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Klotho has been recently described as a carcinogenesis suppressor. Large cell neuroendocrine lung carcinoma (LCNEC) is a rare, highly malignant neoplasm. In the light of increasing incidence of neuroendocrine tumours, biomarkers predicting survival are needed. We consider that Klotho might be one.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analysed records of all patients diagnosed with LCNEC, atypical carcinoid and typical carcinoid operated on in our institution between 2007 and 2015. Initially, we found 134 cases. Forty-six specimens were unattainable and thus excluded from research. All patients diagnosed with LCNEC according to the WHO classification were included in the study. Immunohistochemical staining for Klotho was performed. We retrospectively reviewed patient charts and analysed multiple variables.
RESULTS: Positive staining for Klotho was present in 36 tissue specimens, while 12 patients were Klotho-negative. Survival length was significantly higher in Klotho-positive cases (p = 0.024), while advanced nodal status (N1 and N2) represented a marker of poor outcome (p = 0.011). In multivariate analysis, both Klotho presence (p = 0.015; HR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17-0.86) and nodal involvement (p = 0.007; HR = 3.04; 95% CI: 1.37-6.82) were independent prognostic factors. Tumour vessel invasion and visceral pleura infiltration were not associated with worse treatment results. Klotho presence predicted a favourable prognosis in these groups (p = 0.018; p = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that Klotho might be a positive factor for predicting survival in LCNEC and nodal involvement a negative one. Thus, these two markers may assist in the selection of subjects with unfavourable prognosis and to personalise therapy regimens.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analysed records of all patients diagnosed with LCNEC, atypical carcinoid and typical carcinoid operated on in our institution between 2007 and 2015. Initially, we found 134 cases. Forty-six specimens were unattainable and thus excluded from research. All patients diagnosed with LCNEC according to the WHO classification were included in the study. Immunohistochemical staining for Klotho was performed. We retrospectively reviewed patient charts and analysed multiple variables.
RESULTS: Positive staining for Klotho was present in 36 tissue specimens, while 12 patients were Klotho-negative. Survival length was significantly higher in Klotho-positive cases (p = 0.024), while advanced nodal status (N1 and N2) represented a marker of poor outcome (p = 0.011). In multivariate analysis, both Klotho presence (p = 0.015; HR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17-0.86) and nodal involvement (p = 0.007; HR = 3.04; 95% CI: 1.37-6.82) were independent prognostic factors. Tumour vessel invasion and visceral pleura infiltration were not associated with worse treatment results. Klotho presence predicted a favourable prognosis in these groups (p = 0.018; p = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that Klotho might be a positive factor for predicting survival in LCNEC and nodal involvement a negative one. Thus, these two markers may assist in the selection of subjects with unfavourable prognosis and to personalise therapy regimens.