BACKGROUND: Histologic immunomarkers of cell cycle proteins have been utilized for prognosis in high-grade astrocytic tumors. One such marker, MIB1, an antibody immunoreactive throughout the cell cycle, is predictive of more aggressive disease and poorer prognosis in astrocytomas. An independent role of MIB1 analysis for survival prediction and clinical management within histologic grades has not been clearly proven. METHODS: This study retrospectively evaluated MIB1 reactivity in tissue samples from 116 patients with glioblastomas on initial medical presentation. Clinical variables considered included gender, age, Karnofsky Performance Scores (KPS), extent of surgical resection, adjuvant radiation and survival. RESULTS: Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to correlate these variables with MIB1 staining. MIB1 staining does not predict overall survival or response to adjuvant therapy as an independent risk factor. CONCLUSION: MIB1 labeling does not predict patient survival as an independent variable and does not predict response to additional therapies. Patient survival with glioblastoma was predicted by KPS, age, extent of resection and use of adjuvant radiotherapy.
BACKGROUND: Histologic immunomarkers of cell cycle proteins have been utilized for prognosis in high-grade astrocytic tumors. One such marker, MIB1, an antibody immunoreactive throughout the cell cycle, is predictive of more aggressive disease and poorer prognosis in astrocytomas. An independent role of MIB1 analysis for survival prediction and clinical management within histologic grades has not been clearly proven. METHODS: This study retrospectively evaluated MIB1 reactivity in tissue samples from 116 patients with glioblastomas on initial medical presentation. Clinical variables considered included gender, age, Karnofsky Performance Scores (KPS), extent of surgical resection, adjuvant radiation and survival. RESULTS: Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to correlate these variables with MIB1 staining. MIB1 staining does not predict overall survival or response to adjuvant therapy as an independent risk factor. CONCLUSION:MIB1 labeling does not predict patient survival as an independent variable and does not predict response to additional therapies. Patient survival with glioblastoma was predicted by KPS, age, extent of resection and use of adjuvant radiotherapy.
Authors: C Rodríguez-Pereira; J M Suárez-Peñaranda; M Vázquez-Salvado; M J Sobrido; M Abraldes; F Barros; J Forteza Journal: J Neurosurg Sci Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: W C Broaddus; Y Liu; L L Steele; G T Gillies; P S Lin; W G Loudon; K Valerie; R K Schmidt-Ullrich; H L Fillmore Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Matthias C Schmidt; Sven Antweiler; Nina Urban; Wolf Mueller; A Kuklik; Birgit Meyer-Puttlitz; Otmar D Wiestler; David N Louis; Rolf Fimmers; Andreas von Deimling Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: C Bouvier-Labit; O Chinot; C Ochi; D Gambarelli; H Dufour; D Figarella-Branger Journal: Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 8.090
Authors: W J Curran; C B Scott; J Horton; J S Nelson; A S Weinstein; A J Fischbach; C H Chang; M Rotman; S O Asbell; R E Krisch Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-05-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: F G Barker; M D Prados; S M Chang; R L Davis; P H Gutin; K R Lamborn; D A Larson; M W McDermott; P K Sneed; C B Wilson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1996-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Hiroko Kuriyama; Kathleen R Lamborn; Judith R O'Fallon; N Iturria; Thomas Sebo; Paul L Schaefer; Bernd W Scheithauer; Jan C Buckner; Nagato Kuriyama; Robert B Jenkins; Mark A Israel Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 12.300
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