Literature DB >> 21324435

Molecular biomarkers in endometrial hyperplasias predict cancer progression.

Anita Steinbakk1, Einar Gudlaugsson, Ole Gunnar Aasprong, Ivar Skaland, Anais Malpica, Weiwei Feng, Emiel A M Janssen, Jan P Baak.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the value of the 2003 World Health Organization (WHO) and endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (EIN) classifications, D-score, and molecular biomarkers in endometrial hyperplasia (EH) for cancer progression. STUDY
DESIGN: We conducted a review of 307 endometrial hyperplasias for WHO and EIN classifications and an analysis of biomarkers, D-score, and cancer progression-free survival.
RESULTS: The WHO, EIN, D-score, and many biomarkers were prognostic; 7.2% of the samples progressed to cancer. The WHO and EIN classifications correlated weakly with CK5/6 and p16. The D-score was strongest prognostically. When >1, it had the lowest false-negative progression rate of all features analyzed. COX2 negativity was the only other independent multivariate cancer progression predictor in endometrial hyperplasia, but only in cases with D-score <1. Eight of 13 cases (61%), with a combined D-score of <1 and negative COX2 progressed, which contrasted with 3 of 139 of all other cases (2.8%) (P < .0001; hazard ratio, 53.0). The biomarkers did not strengthen the prognostic value of the WHO or EIN classification.
CONCLUSION: Combined D-score <1 and COX2 negativity strongly predict cancer progression in endometrial hyperplasias.
Copyright © 2011 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21324435     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.12.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  7 in total

Review 1.  Stochastic modulations of the pace and patterns of ageing: impacts on quasi-stochastic distributions of multiple geriatric pathologies.

Authors:  George M Martin
Journal:  Mech Ageing Dev       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 5.432

Review 2.  New concepts for an old problem: the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia.

Authors:  Peter A Sanderson; Hilary O D Critchley; Alistair R W Williams; Mark J Arends; Philippa T K Saunders
Journal:  Hum Reprod Update       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 15.610

3.  Concurrent and future risk of endometrial cancer in women with endometrial hyperplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michelle T Doherty; Omolara B Sanni; Helen G Coleman; Chris R Cardwell; W Glenn McCluggage; Declan Quinn; James Wylie; Úna C McMenamin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  Cytokeratin Expression Pattern in Human Endometrial Carcinomas and Lymph Nodes Micrometastasis: a Mini-review.

Authors:  Danuta Vasilevska; Vilius Rudaitis; Aneta Adamiak-Godlewska; Anna Semczuk-Sikora; Dorota Lewkowicz; Dominika Vasilevska; Andrzej Semczuk
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2022-03-14       Impact factor: 4.207

5.  Risk of atypical hyperplasia and endometrial carcinoma after initial diagnosis of non-atypical endometrial hyperplasia: A long-term follow-up study.

Authors:  Clara M Prip; Maria Stentebjerg; Mary H Bennetsen; Lone K Petersen; Pinar Bor
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Androgen receptors are acquired by healthy postmenopausal endometrial epithelium and their subsequent loss in endometrial cancer is associated with poor survival.

Authors:  A M Kamal; J N Bulmer; S B DeCruze; H F Stringfellow; P Martin-Hirsch; D K Hapangama
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-03-01       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Cyclooxygenase-2 and β-Catenin as Potential Diagnostic and Prognostic Markers in Endometrial Cancer.

Authors:  Lin Deng; Haiyan Liang; Yi Han
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 6.244

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.