UNLABELLED: A retrospective study was performed to determine the prognostic value of Basement Membrane (BM) integrity, Matrix Metalloproteinases (MMPs) and E-Cadherin expression in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An immunohistochemical study on laminin and collagen IV, MMPs 1 and 2, and E-Cadherin was carried out on 71 RCCs. BM fragmentation was considered taking 75% as a cut-off. MMP 1 and MMP2 immunostaining, as well as E-Cadherin was considered taking 25% as a cut-off. RESULTS: An inverse relationship was seen between E-Cadherin with laminin, collagen IV and MMPs. More than 75% loss of laminin, collagen IV and E-Cadherin, as well as higher expression of MMPs, were associated with symptoms, tumoral size and worse grade. Loss of collagen IV and E-Cadherin were of prognostic value. CONCLUSION: Both BM and E-Cadherin are good prognostic markers. MMPs patterns show a relationship between BM proteins and E-Cadherin, but evaluation is more time-consuming and provide no better prognostication; consequently they are not useful in routine clinical applications.
UNLABELLED: A retrospective study was performed to determine the prognostic value of Basement Membrane (BM) integrity, Matrix Metalloproteinases (MMPs) and E-Cadherin expression in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An immunohistochemical study on laminin and collagen IV, MMPs 1 and 2, and E-Cadherin was carried out on 71 RCCs. BM fragmentation was considered taking 75% as a cut-off. MMP 1 and MMP2 immunostaining, as well as E-Cadherin was considered taking 25% as a cut-off. RESULTS: An inverse relationship was seen between E-Cadherin with laminin, collagen IV and MMPs. More than 75% loss of laminin, collagen IV and E-Cadherin, as well as higher expression of MMPs, were associated with symptoms, tumoral size and worse grade. Loss of collagen IV and E-Cadherin were of prognostic value. CONCLUSION: Both BM and E-Cadherin are good prognostic markers. MMPs patterns show a relationship between BM proteins and E-Cadherin, but evaluation is more time-consuming and provide no better prognostication; consequently they are not useful in routine clinical applications.
Authors: Andrew J Evans; Ryan C Russell; Olga Roche; T Nadine Burry; Jason E Fish; Vinca W K Chow; William Y Kim; Arthy Saravanan; Mindy A Maynard; Michelle L Gervais; Roxana I Sufan; Andrew M Roberts; Leigh A Wilson; Mark Betten; Cindy Vandewalle; Geert Berx; Philip A Marsden; Meredith S Irwin; Bin T Teh; Michael A S Jewett; Michael Ohh Journal: Mol Cell Biol Date: 2006-10-23 Impact factor: 4.272
Authors: Masahiro Yanagisawa; Deborah Huveldt; Pamela Kreinest; Christine M Lohse; John C Cheville; Alexander S Parker; John A Copland; Panos Z Anastasiadis Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2008-04-11 Impact factor: 5.157