| Literature DB >> 23618321 |
Tove Lind-Landström1, Rosilin K Varughese, Stein Sundstrøm, Sverre H Torp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The WHO classification system for astrocytomas is not considered optimal, mainly because of the subjective assessment of the histopathological features. Few prognostic variables have been found that stratify the risk of clinical progression in patients with grade II astrocytoma. For that reason there is a continuous search for biomarkers that can improve the histopathological diagnosis and prognostication of these tumours. AIM: This study was designed to investigate the prognostic significance of the proliferative marker Mcm2 (minichromosome maintenance protein 2) in diffuse astrocytomas WHO grade II and correlate the findings with histopathology, mitoses, and Ki67/MIB-1 immunostaining.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23618321 PMCID: PMC3648352 DOI: 10.1186/1746-1596-8-67
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagn Pathol ISSN: 1746-1596 Impact factor: 2.644
Histological features
| Subtypes | | |
| Fibrillary | 55 | 90.2 |
| Gemistocytic | 5 | 8.2 |
| Protoplasmic | 1 | 1.6 |
| Cell density | | |
| Low | 16 | 26.2 |
| Moderate | 40 | 65.6 |
| High | 5 | 8.2 |
| Atypia | | |
| Slight | 24 | 39.3 |
| Moderate | 36 | 59.0 |
| Severe | 1 | 1.6 |
| Apoptoses | 27 | 44.3 |
| Mitoses | | |
| None | 41 | 67.2 |
| One | 14 | 23.0 |
| Two | 4 | 6.6 |
| Three | 2 | 3.3 |
| Rosenthal fibres | 2 | 3.3 |
| Eosinophilic granular bodies | 0 | 0.0 |
| Microcysts | 21 | 34.4 |
| Myxoid matrix | 7 | 11.5 |
| Microcalcification | 3 | 4.9 |
| Perivascular lymphocytic infiltration | 11 | 18.0 |
| Secondary structures | 40 | 65.6 |
| Subpial | 12 | 19.7 |
| Satellitosis | 41 | 67.2 |
| Angiocentric growth | 13 | 21.3 |
Figure 1Image of a Mcm2 immunostaining of a grade II astrocytomas with positive neoplastic astrocytic cell nuclei (dark) (40× objective).
Descriptive statistics for and Ki67/MIB-1 PI and Mcm2 PI
| No of cases | 60 | 61 |
| Median | 4.6% | 2.8% |
| Range | 0.1-13.4% | 0-14.5% |
Figure 2Scatterplot of Ki67/MIB-1 PIs versus Mcm2 PIs.
Relationship between proliferative markers
| Mcm2 PI versus Ki67/MIB-1 PI | < 0.01 |
| Mcm2 PI versus mitotic count | 0.026 |
Relations between Mcm2 PI and some histopathological features
| Mcm2 PI and mitoses | 0.032 |
| Mcm2 PI and apoptoses | 0.302 |
| Mcm2 PI and cell density | 0.974 |
| Mcm2 PI and atypia | 0.395 |
| Mcm2 PI and microcysts | 0.267 |
| Mcm2 PI and secondary structures | 0.952 |
Figure 3Kaplan-Meier survival curves for patients with different Mcm2 PIs (cut off at median value) (overall survival, log rank test p = 0.918).
Prognostic factors: survival determined by univariate Cox regression analyses including both overall survival and time to recurrence
| | | |
| - Mcm2 PI | 0.367 | NS |
| - Ki67/MIB-1 PI | 0.239 | NS |
| - Mitotic count | 0.099 | NS |
| | | |
| - Mcm2 PI | 0.407 | NS |
| - Ki67/MIB-1 PI | 0.516 | NS |
| - Mitotic count | 0.057 | NS |