BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcome in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) by using molecular biological classification based on immunohistochemical analysis in addition to tumor, node, metastasis system (TNM) classification. METHODS: Samples from 71 patients with ESCC who underwent surgery were analyzed immunohistochemically. Cyclin B1, E-cadherin, Bag-1, and heat-shock protein 70 were selected as the molecular biological parameters. The utility of molecular biological classification on clinical impact was examined and compared with TNM classification. RESULTS: Three patients were diagnosed as stage 0, 14 as stage I, 20 as stage II, 19 as stage III, and 15 as stage IV by TNM classification. Thirteen patients were classified as stage 0, 17 as stage I, 21 as stage II, 18 as stage III, and 2 as stage IV by molecular biological classification. Molecular biological stage (P < .0001) and TNM stage (P < .0001) were statistically significant prognostic parameters in univariate analysis. Twenty (28.2%) of 71 patients were assigned to the same stage by both classifications, and a significant correlation was identified between the two classifications (P = .0002). Molecular biological classification (P < .01) and TNM classification (P < .0001) were independent prognostic parameters in multivariate analysis. Combined TNM and molecular biological classification accurately reflected clinical outcome (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Molecular biological classification combined with TNM classification is useful for assessing the prognosis of patients with ESCC.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcome in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) by using molecular biological classification based on immunohistochemical analysis in addition to tumor, node, metastasis system (TNM) classification. METHODS: Samples from 71 patients with ESCC who underwent surgery were analyzed immunohistochemically. Cyclin B1, E-cadherin, Bag-1, and heat-shock protein 70 were selected as the molecular biological parameters. The utility of molecular biological classification on clinical impact was examined and compared with TNM classification. RESULTS: Three patients were diagnosed as stage 0, 14 as stage I, 20 as stage II, 19 as stage III, and 15 as stage IV by TNM classification. Thirteen patients were classified as stage 0, 17 as stage I, 21 as stage II, 18 as stage III, and 2 as stage IV by molecular biological classification. Molecular biological stage (P < .0001) and TNM stage (P < .0001) were statistically significant prognostic parameters in univariate analysis. Twenty (28.2%) of 71 patients were assigned to the same stage by both classifications, and a significant correlation was identified between the two classifications (P = .0002). Molecular biological classification (P < .01) and TNM classification (P < .0001) were independent prognostic parameters in multivariate analysis. Combined TNM and molecular biological classification accurately reflected clinical outcome (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Molecular biological classification combined with TNM classification is useful for assessing the prognosis of patients with ESCC.
Authors: H Tan; H Zhang; J Xie; B Chen; C Wen; X Guo; Q Zhao; Z Wu; J Shen; J Wu; X Xu; E Li; L Xu; X Wang Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Judith Boone; Richard van Hillegersberg; Paul J van Diest; G Johan A Offerhaus; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Fiebo J W Ten Kate Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: H X Yang; W Feng; J C Wei; T S Zeng; Z D Li; L J Zhang; P Lin; R Z Luo; J H He; J H Fu Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 7.640