| Literature DB >> 20146809 |
Farhan Rashid1, Raheela N Khan, Syed Y Iftikhar.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human oesophageal carcinoma is considered to be one of the most aggressive malignancies and has a very poor prognosis. The incidence of oesophageal cancer shows a gender bias and is higher in males compared with females, the ratio between males and females varying from 3:1 to 7:1. This sex ratio is not entirely attributable to differences in the prevalence of known risk factors between the sexes. The potential role of oestrogen receptors (ER) in oesophageal cancer has been debated for several years but the significance of the receptors in this cancer remains unknown. Most of the work has been based on immunohistochemistry and has not been validated with other available techniques. The inconsistencies in the published literature on the link between ER expression and oesophageal cancer warrant a thorough evaluation of the potential role of ERs in this malignancy. Even the expression of the two ER isoforms, ERalpha and ERbeta, and its implications for outcome of treatments in histological subtypes of oesophageal tumours is ill defined. The aim of this article is to provide updated information from the available literature on the current status of ER expression in oesophageal cancer and to discuss its potential therapeutic role. METHODS ANDEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20146809 PMCID: PMC2831901 DOI: 10.1186/1477-7819-8-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Surg Oncol ISSN: 1477-7819 Impact factor: 2.754
Figure 1Aetiological factors for oesophageal adenocarcinoma.
Figure 2Aetiological factors for oesophageal squamous cell cancer.
Figure 3Immunohistochemical overexpression of oestrogen beta receptors.
Figure 4Pathways of oestrogen action. The ERα/ERβ is a simplified schematic of the ER. MAPK mitogen activated protein kinase, PKC protein kinase C, PKA protein kinase A, cAMP 3'-5' cyclic adenosine monophosphate, Ca2+ intracellular calcium, DBD DNA binding domain, LBD ligand binding domain.
Studies assessing the risk of oesophageal cancer in relation to oestrogen receptors.
| No of patients | M:F | PR | ER-α | ER-β | Histological subtypes of OC | Source & affinity of ER AB | Significance/Dedifferentiation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kalayarasan | 45 | 3:2 (SCC) | 0 | 0 | 45 | AC (n = 15) | Novacastra- | |
| Boone J | 108 | 0 | 0 | 100% s SCC | Dako- | No staining found with | ||
| Nozoe T | 73 | 10:1 | ND | 47 | 21 | 100% SCC | Santa Cruz- | |
| Tiffin et al., (UK,2003)[ | 20 | 1:1 | ND | ND | ND | ER= +ve | Dako- | |
| Wang L et al., (China,1991)[ | 48 | 19 | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Unknown | Gender & grade of tumour were influencing ER expression | |
| Akgun et al., (USA,2002)[ | 31 | ND | ND | NA | 23 | AC | NS- | AC, BM show higher expression of |
| Liu et al., (USA, 2004)[ | 33 | ND | ND | NA | ERβ 1 = 23/27 | ACC>Barrett's metaplasia negative for dysplasia | In house- | |
ND: Not determined; PR progesterone receptor; AB: antibody; AC: adenocarcinoma; BM: Barrett's metaplasia; NS: not specified; OC: oesophageal cancer; NA: not applicable
*Tiffin et al[40] (n = 20), Six patients with metaplasia also had positive ER staining