OBJECTIVE: To compare the immunohistochemically assessed expression of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) family in normal and malignant bladder urothelium, and suggest new hypotheses about their function in the development and progression of transitional cell carcinoma (TCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: EGFR, ERBB2, ERBB3 and ERBB4 were evaluated immunohistochemically in normal urothelium (NU, 15), primary non-metastasized invasive TCC (NMC, 19) and in primary invasive TCCs with corresponding metastases (MC, 51, both specimens). RESULTS: All NU samples expressed ERBB4, none expressed ERBB2 and two expressed EGFR; all staining was uniform throughout all cell layers. ERBB2 expression increased and ERBB4 decreased from normal samples to carcinomas. There was no difference between NMCs and MCs in ERBB2, ERBB3 and ERBB4, but the NMCs expressed more EGFR than both NU and MC samples. There were no associations with T category, grade or survival. All combinations of expression levels for the four receptors were detected, with no dominant profile. CONCLUSION: We hypothesise that: (i) ERBB4 is important for differentiation in NU; (ii) ERBB2 is up-regulated with carcinogenesis in the urinary bladder but does not discriminate between bladder cancer with or without metastases; (iii) EGFR may be a marker of indolent disease. A current hypothesis, that superficial layers of NU do not express EGFR and thus protect the basal cells from the mitogenic effect of urinary EGF, is challenged.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the immunohistochemically assessed expression of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) family in normal and malignant bladder urothelium, and suggest new hypotheses about their function in the development and progression of transitional cell carcinoma (TCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: EGFR, ERBB2, ERBB3 and ERBB4 were evaluated immunohistochemically in normal urothelium (NU, 15), primary non-metastasized invasive TCC (NMC, 19) and in primary invasive TCCs with corresponding metastases (MC, 51, both specimens). RESULTS: All NU samples expressed ERBB4, none expressed ERBB2 and two expressed EGFR; all staining was uniform throughout all cell layers. ERBB2 expression increased and ERBB4 decreased from normal samples to carcinomas. There was no difference between NMCs and MCs in ERBB2, ERBB3 and ERBB4, but the NMCs expressed more EGFR than both NU and MC samples. There were no associations with T category, grade or survival. All combinations of expression levels for the four receptors were detected, with no dominant profile. CONCLUSION: We hypothesise that: (i) ERBB4 is important for differentiation in NU; (ii) ERBB2 is up-regulated with carcinogenesis in the urinary bladder but does not discriminate between bladder cancer with or without metastases; (iii) EGFR may be a marker of indolent disease. A current hypothesis, that superficial layers of NU do not express EGFR and thus protect the basal cells from the mitogenic effect of urinary EGF, is challenged.
Authors: Benjamin A Mooso; Ruth L Vinall; Maria Mudryj; Stanley A Yap; Ralph W deVere White; Paramita M Ghosh Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-08-23 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Reema Railkar; L Spencer Krane; Q Quentin Li; Thomas Sanford; Mohammad Rashid Siddiqui; Diana Haines; Srinivas Vourganti; Sam J Brancato; Peter L Choyke; Hisataka Kobayashi; Piyush K Agarwal Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Thomas W Flaig; Shandra Wilson; Adrie van Bokhoven; Marileila Varella-Garcia; Pamela Wolfe; Paul Maroni; E Erin Genova; Diana Morales; M Scott Lucia Journal: Urology Date: 2011-08-02 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Julia Fazel; Silvia Rötzer; Christof Seidl; Benedikt Feuerecker; Michael Autenrieth; Gregor Weirich; Frank Bruchertseifer; Alfred Morgenstern; Reingard Senekowitsch-Schmidtke Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 4.742
Authors: Suehyun K Cho; Lih-Jen Su; Chenchen Mao; Connor D Wolenski; Thomas W Flaig; Wounjhang Park Journal: Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl Date: 2018-12-29 Impact factor: 7.328