PURPOSE: To investigate the expression of cyclooxygenase (COX-2) and its association with clinicopathologic parameters and clinical outcome in patients with cervical cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 84 patients with stage IB to IVA cervical cancer. Patients with early-stage cases (n = 21) underwent radical surgery, whereas patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) (n = 63) were first administered neoadjuvant cisplatin-based treatment and subjected to surgery in case of response. Immunohistochemical analysis was performed on paraffin-embedded sections with rabbit antiserum against COX-2. RESULTS: COX-2--integrated density values in the overall population ranged from 1.2 to 82.3, with mean plus minus SE values of 27.4 plus minus 2.4. According to the chosen cutoff value, 36 (42.9%) of 84 patients were scored as COX-2 positive. COX-2 levels were shown to be highly associated with tumor susceptibility to neoadjuvant treatment. COX-2 showed a progressive increase from mean plus minus SE values of 19.9 plus minus 8.0 in complete responders through 31.5 plus minus 3.5 in partial responses to 44.8 plus minus 3.9 in patients who were not responsive (P =.0054). When logistic regression was applied, only advanced stage and COX-2 positivity retained independent roles in predicting a poor chance of response to treatment. COX-2--positive patients had a shorter overall survival (OS) rate than COX-2--negative patients. In patients with LACC, the 2-year OS rate was 38% in COX-2--positive versus 85% in COX-2--negative patients (P =.0001). In the multivariate analysis, only advanced stage and COX-2 positivity retained independent negative prognostic roles for OS. CONCLUSION: The assessment of COX-2 status could provide additional information to identify patients with cervical cancer with a poor chance of response to neoadjuvant treatment and unfavorable prognosis.
PURPOSE: To investigate the expression of cyclooxygenase (COX-2) and its association with clinicopathologic parameters and clinical outcome in patients with cervical cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 84 patients with stage IB to IVA cervical cancer. Patients with early-stage cases (n = 21) underwent radical surgery, whereas patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) (n = 63) were first administered neoadjuvant cisplatin-based treatment and subjected to surgery in case of response. Immunohistochemical analysis was performed on paraffin-embedded sections with rabbit antiserum against COX-2. RESULTS:COX-2--integrated density values in the overall population ranged from 1.2 to 82.3, with mean plus minus SE values of 27.4 plus minus 2.4. According to the chosen cutoff value, 36 (42.9%) of 84 patients were scored as COX-2 positive. COX-2 levels were shown to be highly associated with tumor susceptibility to neoadjuvant treatment. COX-2 showed a progressive increase from mean plus minus SE values of 19.9 plus minus 8.0 in complete responders through 31.5 plus minus 3.5 in partial responses to 44.8 plus minus 3.9 in patients who were not responsive (P =.0054). When logistic regression was applied, only advanced stage and COX-2 positivity retained independent roles in predicting a poor chance of response to treatment. COX-2--positive patients had a shorter overall survival (OS) rate than COX-2--negative patients. In patients with LACC, the 2-year OS rate was 38% in COX-2--positive versus 85% in COX-2--negative patients (P =.0001). In the multivariate analysis, only advanced stage and COX-2 positivity retained independent negative prognostic roles for OS. CONCLUSION: The assessment of COX-2 status could provide additional information to identify patients with cervical cancer with a poor chance of response to neoadjuvant treatment and unfavorable prognosis.
Authors: Wilma Neumann; Brenda C Crews; Menyhárt B Sárosi; Cristina M Daniel; Kebreab Ghebreselasie; Matthias S Scholz; Lawrence J Marnett; Evamarie Hey-Hawkins Journal: ChemMedChem Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Janet S Rader; Michael W Sill; Jan H Beumer; Heather A Lankes; Doris Mangiaracina Benbrook; Francisco Garcia; Connie Trimble; J Tate Thigpen; Richard Lieberman; Rosemary E Zuna; Charles A Leath; Nick M Spirtos; John Byron; Premal H Thaker; Shashikant Lele; David Alberts Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Takiko Daikoku; Dingzhi Wang; Susanne Tranguch; Jason D Morrow; Sandra Orsulic; Raymond N DuBois; Sudhansu K Dey Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Daniel W Fitzgerald; Karl Bezak; Oksana Ocheretina; Cynthia Riviere; Thomas C Wright; Ginger L Milne; Xi Kathy Zhou; Baoheng Du; Kotha Subbaramaiah; Erin Byrt; Matthew L Goodwin; Arash Rafii; Andrew J Dannenberg Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2011-12-01
Authors: Corinne M Doll; Kathryn Winter; David K Gaffney; Janice K Ryu; Anuja Jhingran; Adam P Dicker; Joanne B Weidhaas; Brigitte E Miller; Anthony M Magliocco Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: E R Nijhuis; H W Nijman; K A Oien; A Bell; K A ten Hoor; N Reesink-Peters; H M Boezen; H Hollema; A G J van der Zee Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.411