BACKGROUND: malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare peritoneal mesothelial neoplasm. Ki67 and BCL2 are established prognostic markers in several cancers. High Ki67 expression indicates tumour progression, whilst similar expression of BCL2 retards tumour replication. Traditionally, prognosis in MPM is gauged with a single biomarker assessed separately in a dichotomous manner. Here, we examine prognosis with dual biomarkers incorporated in a model to predict survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty two MPM archival patient tumours were screened for Ki67 and BCL2 by immunohistochemistry and evaluated using standard methods. Ki67 and BCL2 expression was incorporated into a prognostic model to develop Ki67-BCL2 index. Using this index, three hazard groups were identified (high, medium and low risk). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to assess the significance of these hazard groups in the various clinicopathological categories. RESULTS: In all clinicopathological categories, high risk group showed poor prognosis compared to low risk group (p = < 0.001). Compared to medium risk, high risk group carried poor prognosis in all tumours, females, epitheloid tumours, peritoneal cancer index (PCI) < 20, ≥ 20, age at diagnosis (AAD) < 60, and ≥ 60 years. Independent of the Ki67-BCL2 index, male, sarcomatoid, PCI ≥ 20 and AAD ≥ 60 were poor prognostic factors. High risk group was an independent poor prognostic factor in all tumours, males, females and age < 60 years. The distribution of high risk: low risk group in male and female was 3: 2 and 2: 3, respectively, indicating a gender difference. Comparing hazard ratios generated by Ki67-BCL2 index to that of either Ki67 or BCL2, as a single prognostic biomarker, there was a reduction of HR values. CONCLUSION: Ki67-BCL2 index seems to suggest a more sensitive method of predicting prognosis. However, the current model needs further evaluation in an independent large cohort sample.
BACKGROUND:malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) is a rare peritoneal mesothelial neoplasm. Ki67 and BCL2 are established prognostic markers in several cancers. High Ki67 expression indicates tumour progression, whilst similar expression of BCL2retards tumour replication. Traditionally, prognosis in MPM is gauged with a single biomarker assessed separately in a dichotomous manner. Here, we examine prognosis with dual biomarkers incorporated in a model to predict survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty two MPM archival patienttumours were screened for Ki67 and BCL2 by immunohistochemistry and evaluated using standard methods. Ki67 and BCL2 expression was incorporated into a prognostic model to develop Ki67-BCL2 index. Using this index, three hazard groups were identified (high, medium and low risk). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to assess the significance of these hazard groups in the various clinicopathological categories. RESULTS: In all clinicopathological categories, high risk group showed poor prognosis compared to low risk group (p = < 0.001). Compared to medium risk, high risk group carried poor prognosis in all tumours, females, epitheloid tumours, peritoneal cancer index (PCI) < 20, ≥ 20, age at diagnosis (AAD) < 60, and ≥ 60 years. Independent of the Ki67-BCL2 index, male, sarcomatoid, PCI ≥ 20 and AAD ≥ 60 were poor prognostic factors. High risk group was an independent poor prognostic factor in all tumours, males, females and age < 60 years. The distribution of high risk: low risk group in male and female was 3: 2 and 2: 3, respectively, indicating a gender difference. Comparing hazard ratios generated by Ki67-BCL2 index to that of either Ki67 or BCL2, as a single prognostic biomarker, there was a reduction of HR values. CONCLUSION: Ki67-BCL2 index seems to suggest a more sensitive method of predicting prognosis. However, the current model needs further evaluation in an independent large cohort sample.
Authors: H Raza Ali; Sarah-Jane Dawson; Fiona M Blows; Elena Provenzano; Samuel Leung; Torsten Nielsen; Paul D Pharoah; Carlos Caldas Journal: J Pathol Date: 2011-09-26 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: D M Berney; A Gopalan; S Kudahetti; G Fisher; L Ambroisine; C S Foster; V Reuter; J Eastham; H Moller; M W Kattan; W Gerald; C Cooper; P Scardino; J Cuzick Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: David B Chapel; Jefree J Schulte; Gudrun Absenger; Richard Attanoos; Luka Brcic; Kelly J Butnor; Lucian Chirieac; Andrew Churg; Françoise Galateau-Sallé; Kenzo Hiroshima; Yin P Hung; Hedy Kindler; Thomas Krausz; Alberto Marchevsky; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Jeffrey Mueller; Kazuki Nabeshima; Kirin Turaga; Ann E Walts; Aliya N Husain Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: B Ghanim; T Klikovits; M A Hoda; G Lang; I Szirtes; U Setinek; A Rozsas; F Renyi-Vamos; V Laszlo; M Grusch; M Filipits; A Scheed; M Jakopovic; M Samarzija; L Brcic; D Stancic-Rokotov; I Kern; A Rozman; G Dekan; W Klepetko; W Berger; T Glasz; B Dome; B Hegedus Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Mohamed A Alfaleh; Christopher B Howard; Ilya Sedliarou; Martina L Jones; Reema Gudhka; Natasha Vanegas; Jocelyn Weiss; Julia H Suurbach; Christopher J de Bakker; Michael R Milne; Bree A Rumballe; Jennifer A MacDiarmid; Himanshu Brahmbhatt; Stephen M Mahler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 3.240