INTRODUCTION: The expression of E-cadherin, beta-catenin and topoisomerase II has been associated with clinical outcome of several cancers including sarcomas. We aimed to evaluate the expression of these markers in leiomyosarcomas (LMS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Paraffin blocks of 19 primary, nonmetastatic LMS were analysed immunohistochemically for the expression of the above-mentioned markers with a cutoff level for positivity of 20% of cell staining. RESULTS: Expression of E-cadherin was negative in all LMS. Nuclear expression of beta-catenin was also negative in all cases, while positive cytoplasmic beta-catenin expression was observed in approximately half of the patients. The majority of LMS had expression of topoisomerase IIalpha, although only in 10 patients was this expression in more than 20% of tumour cells. From the analysed factors, tumour size was statistically significantly correlated with relapse-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Further evidence with larger series is required in order to determine the implication of these markers in LMS.
INTRODUCTION: The expression of E-cadherin, beta-catenin and topoisomerase II has been associated with clinical outcome of several cancers including sarcomas. We aimed to evaluate the expression of these markers in leiomyosarcomas (LMS). MATERIALS AND METHODS:Paraffin blocks of 19 primary, nonmetastatic LMS were analysed immunohistochemically for the expression of the above-mentioned markers with a cutoff level for positivity of 20% of cell staining. RESULTS: Expression of E-cadherin was negative in all LMS. Nuclear expression of beta-catenin was also negative in all cases, while positive cytoplasmic beta-catenin expression was observed in approximately half of the patients. The majority of LMS had expression of topoisomerase IIalpha, although only in 10 patients was this expression in more than 20% of tumour cells. From the analysed factors, tumour size was statistically significantly correlated with relapse-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Further evidence with larger series is required in order to determine the implication of these markers in LMS.
Authors: A Gaumann; D S Tews; T Mentzel; P K Petrow; E Mayer; M Otto; C J Kirkpatrick; J Kriegsmann Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2003-05-13 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Tony L Ng; Allen M Gown; Todd S Barry; Maggie C U Cheang; Andy K W Chan; Dmitry A Turbin; Forrest D Hsu; Robert B West; Torsten O Nielsen Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Kristelle Lusby; Kari Brewer Savannah; Elizabeth G Demicco; Yiqun Zhang; Markus Ph Ghadimi; Eric D Young; Chiara Colombo; Ryan Lam; Tugce E Dogan; Jason L Hornick; Alexander J Lazar; Kelly K Hunt; Matthew L Anderson; Chad J Creighton; Dina Lev; Raphael E Pollock Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-01-20 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ning Wang; Yong-Lai He; Li-Juan Pang; Hong Zou; Chun-Xia Liu; Jin Zhao; Jian-Ming Hu; Wen-Jie Zhang; Yan Qi; Feng Li Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kristin Teiken; Mark Kuehnel; Jan Rehkaemper; Hans Kreipe; Florian Laenger; Kais Hussein; Danny Jonigk Journal: Clin Sarcoma Res Date: 2018-06-04