AIM: To evaluate the frequency of neural cell adhesion molecule (NCAM)-180 expression in fresh tumor tissue samples and to discuss the prognostic value of NCAM-180 in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Twenty-six patients (16 men, 10 women) with colorectal cancer were included in the study. Fresh tumor tissue samples and macroscopically healthy proximal margins of each specimen were subjected to flow-cytometric analysis for NCAM-180 expression. RESULTS: Flow-cytometric analysis determined NCAM-180 expression in whole tissue samples of macroscopically healthy colorectal tissues. However, NCAM-180 expression was positive in only one case (3.84%) with well-differentiated Stage II disease who experienced no active disease at 30 mon follow-up. CONCLUSION: As a consequence of the limited number of cases in our series, it might not be possible to make a generalisation, nevertheless the routine use of NCAM-180 expression as a prognostic marker for colorectal carcinoma seems to be unfeasible and not cost-effective in clinical practice due to its very low incidence.
AIM: To evaluate the frequency of neural cell adhesion molecule (NCAM)-180 expression in fresh tumor tissue samples and to discuss the prognostic value of NCAM-180 in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Twenty-six patients (16 men, 10 women) with colorectal cancer were included in the study. Fresh tumor tissue samples and macroscopically healthy proximal margins of each specimen were subjected to flow-cytometric analysis for NCAM-180 expression. RESULTS: Flow-cytometric analysis determined NCAM-180 expression in whole tissue samples of macroscopically healthy colorectal tissues. However, NCAM-180 expression was positive in only one case (3.84%) with well-differentiated Stage II disease who experienced no active disease at 30 mon follow-up. CONCLUSION: As a consequence of the limited number of cases in our series, it might not be possible to make a generalisation, nevertheless the routine use of NCAM-180 expression as a prognostic marker for colorectal carcinoma seems to be unfeasible and not cost-effective in clinical practice due to its very low incidence.
Authors: L Daniel; J Trouillas; W Renaud; P Chevallier; J Gouvernet; G Rougon; D Figarella-Branger Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2000-01-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: R B McLaughlin; K T Montone; S J Wall; A A Chalian; G S Weinstein; S A Roberts; P F Wolf; R S Weber Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: E R Fearon; K R Cho; J M Nigro; S E Kern; J W Simons; J M Ruppert; S R Hamilton; A C Preisinger; G Thomas; K W Kinzler Journal: Science Date: 1990-01-05 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: S Sowparani; P Mahalakshmi; J Pushpa Sweety; Arul Prakash Francis; U M Dhanalekshmi; N Selvasudha Journal: Mol Neurobiol Date: 2022-07-12 Impact factor: 5.682