BACKGROUND: In recent years, the monoclonal antibody MIB-1 has become the main factor to measure the proliferative potential of glial tumors. This antibody is equivalent to Ki-67, which is used in frozen sections, and reacts with a nuclear protein that is expressed through the cell cycle. We have investigated the value of MIB-1 Labelling Index (LI) as an independent prognostic factor in gliomas and its relationship with clinical and pathological parameters. METHODS: MIB-1 LI was determined in 139 gliomas by using the Streptavidin-Biotin Complex (SBC) immunohistochemical method. MIB-1 LI immunoreactivity was measured with an automatic cell counting system. Survival was studied by using the Kaplan-Meier bivariant analysis and Cox multivariant regression. RESULTS: In bivariant analysis MIB-1 LI increased with age, histological grade and a supratentorial lateral location. Only size and tumor grade were significant in Cox regression. CONCLUSIONS: Perhaps this proliferation marker is influenced by many factors which reduce its value as an isolated prognostic parameter.
BACKGROUND: In recent years, the monoclonal antibody MIB-1 has become the main factor to measure the proliferative potential of glial tumors. This antibody is equivalent to Ki-67, which is used in frozen sections, and reacts with a nuclear protein that is expressed through the cell cycle. We have investigated the value of MIB-1 Labelling Index (LI) as an independent prognostic factor in gliomas and its relationship with clinical and pathological parameters. METHODS:MIB-1 LI was determined in 139 gliomas by using the Streptavidin-Biotin Complex (SBC) immunohistochemical method. MIB-1 LI immunoreactivity was measured with an automatic cell counting system. Survival was studied by using the Kaplan-Meier bivariant analysis and Cox multivariant regression. RESULTS: In bivariant analysis MIB-1 LI increased with age, histological grade and a supratentorial lateral location. Only size and tumor grade were significant in Cox regression. CONCLUSIONS: Perhaps this proliferation marker is influenced by many factors which reduce its value as an isolated prognostic parameter.
Authors: Jeannette R Flynn; Libo Wang; David L Gillespie; Gregory J Stoddard; Jason K Reid; Jason Owens; Grant B Ellsworth; Karen L Salzman; Anita Y Kinney; Randy L Jensen Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-09-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Anna S Berghoff; Harald Stefanits; Adelheid Woehrer; Harald Heinzl; Matthias Preusser; Johannes A Hainfellner Journal: Clin Neuropathol Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.368