Literature DB >> 22020044

Expression of minichromosome maintenance MCM6 protein in meningiomas is strongly correlated with histologic grade and clinical outcome.

Guillaume Gauchotte1, Charlène Vigouroux, Fabien Rech, Shyue-Fang Battaglia-Hsu, Marc Soudant, Catherine Pinelli, Thierry Civit, Luc Taillandier, Jean-Michel Vignaud, Aude Bressenot.   

Abstract

The 2007 World Health Organization histologic grading of meningiomas is associated with recurrence and clinical outcome. However, distinction of grade I from grade II (atypical) meningiomas can be challenging. In the World Health Organization classification, there are 4 parameters on the basis of which grade II status can be determined: mitotic rate, cytoarchitectural features, brain invasion, and/or histologic subtype. Furthermore, this classification fails to detect grade I recurrent meningiomas, for which other prognostic criteria would be needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the respective value of several markers involved in cell cycle as effective tools to predict recurrence. This retrospective study was based on a series of 59 meningiomas (grade I: 32 of 59, grade II: 27 of 59, all harboring ≥4 mitoses/1.6 mm), analyzed with the following immunohistochemical markers: MCM6, Ki-67, PHH3, cyclin D1, and p53. We found a significant correlation between histologic grade and mean labeling index for MCM6 (grade I: 21.8% vs. grade II: 65.8%; P<0.001), Ki-67 (3.2% vs. 16.9%; P<0.001), PHH3 (0.7‰ vs. 2.8‰; P<0.001), cyclin D1 (50.4% vs. 70.0%; P=0.005), and p53 (17.3% vs. 32.4%; P=0.017). Histologic grading and mitotic index were correlated with progression-free survival (P=0.010 and P=0.020, respectively). A nearly linear correlation was found between progression-free survival and staining for MCM6 (P<0.001), Ki-67 (P=0.003), and PHH3 (P=0.037) but not for cyclin D1 (P=0.400) and p53 (P=0.758). The interobserver agreement coefficients for MCM6, Ki-67, PHH3, cyclin D1, and p53 were, respectively, 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-0.98), 0.93 (0.89-0.96), 0.81 (0.70-0.88), 0.90 (0.83-0.94), and 0.84 (0.73-0.90). In conclusion, because of its strong level of expression and sharp difference in labeling index between indolent and recurrent tumors, MCM6 is the most efficient marker to identify tumors with a high risk of recurrence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22020044     DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e318235ee03

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  13 in total

1.  MCM7 expression is a promising predictor of recurrence in patients surgically resected for meningiomas.

Authors:  Theo L Winther; Sverre H Torp
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 4.130

2.  Prognostic significance of MCM6 expression in gastrointestinal stromal tumor.

Authors:  Young-Ran Shim; Aeri Kim; Mi-Jin Gu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2021-12-15

3.  Minichromosome maintenance complex component 6 (MCM6) expression correlates with histological grade and survival in endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Judicaël Hotton; Mikaël Agopiantz; Agnès Leroux; Claire Charra-Brunaud; Béatrice Marie; Hélène Busby-Venner; Olivier Morel; Jean-Louis Guéant; Jean-Michel Vignaud; Shyue-Fang Battaglia-Hsu; Guillaume Gauchotte
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  High MCM6 Expression as a Potential Prognostic Marker in Clear-cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Nu-Ri Jang; Jina Baek; Younghwii Ko; Phil Hyun Song; Mi-Jin Gu
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2021 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.406

Review 5.  Accuracy of novel diagnostic biomarkers for hepatocellular carcinoma: An update for clinicians (Review).

Authors:  Patrick Reichl; Wolfgang Mikulits
Journal:  Oncol Rep       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 3.906

6.  MCM6 promotes metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma via MEK/ERK pathway and serves as a novel serum biomarker for early recurrence.

Authors:  Mingyu Liu; Qiaoting Hu; Mengxian Tu; Xinyi Wang; Zike Yang; Guoxiong Yang; Rongcheng Luo
Journal:  J Exp Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2018-01-22

7.  Minichromosome maintenance 6 complex component identified by bioinformatics analysis and experimental validation in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Xuebing Li; Zhenzhen Ren; Chao Xiong; Jie Geng; Yuqing Li; Cong Liu; Chunfeng Ren; Hongchun Liu
Journal:  Oncol Rep       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 3.906

8.  Distinct Diagnostic and Prognostic Values of Minichromosome Maintenance Gene Expression in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Xiwen Liao; Xiaoguang Liu; Chengkun Yang; Xiangkun Wang; Tingdong Yu; Chuangye Han; Ketuan Huang; Guangzhi Zhu; Hao Su; Wei Qin; Rui Huang; Long Yu; Jianlong Deng; Xianmin Zeng; Xinping Ye; Tao Peng
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2018-06-12       Impact factor: 4.207

9.  MCM2, MCM4, and MCM6 in Breast Cancer: Clinical Utility in Diagnosis and Prognosis.

Authors:  Marianne Samir Makboul Issac; Einas Yousef; Muhammad Ramzan Tahir; Louis A Gaboury
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2019-08-30       Impact factor: 5.715

10.  GTSE1, CDC20, PCNA, and MCM6 Synergistically Affect Regulations in Cell Cycle and Indicate Poor Prognosis in Liver Cancer.

Authors:  Yongchang Zheng; Yue Shi; Si Yu; Yuanyuan Han; Kai Kang; Haifeng Xu; Huajian Gu; Xinting Sang; Yang Chen; Jingyu Wang
Journal:  Anal Cell Pathol (Amst)       Date:  2019-12-30       Impact factor: 2.916

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.