| Literature DB >> 24201754 |
P Nankivell1, H Williams, C McConkey, K Webster, A High, K MacLennan, B Senguven, P Rabbitts, H Mehanna.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prognostic biomarkers aim to improve on the current inadequate method of histological assessment to identify patients with oral epithelial dysplasia at greatest risk of malignant transformation. We aimed to assess the prognostic ability of six protein biomarkers linked to the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathway, including three tetraspanins, in a large multicentre oral dysplasia cohort.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24201754 PMCID: PMC3844903 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.600
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Clinical characteristics of cohort (number and percent) with prognostic ability by univariate logistic regression (P-value)
| Mild | 69 (47) | |
| Moderate | 50 (34) | |
| Severe | 27 (18) | |
| CIS | 2 (1) | |
| | ||
| Male | 76 (51) | |
| Female | 72 (49) | |
| | ||
| Tongue | 69 (47) | |
| Floor of mouth | 20 (13) | |
| Palate | 18 (12) | |
| Buccal | 38 (26) | |
| Retromolar | 3 (2) | |
| | ||
| White patch | 94 (63) | |
| Red patch | 15 (10) | |
| Speckled patch | 13 (9) | |
| Ulcer | 22 (15) | |
| Lump | 4 (3) | |
| | ||
| >21 U/week | 23 (15) | |
| <21 U/week | 58 (40) | |
| None | 44 (30) | |
| Unknown | 23 (15) | |
| | ||
| Current | 69 (47) | |
| Ex | 9 (6) | |
| Non | 47 (32) | |
| Unknown | 23 (15) |
Abbreviation: CIS=carcinoma in situ.
Figure 1Representative tetraspanin immunohistochemistry. Tiles (A–C) (CD151) and (D–F) (CD82) demonstrate increasing expression from scores of 2 (top row) to 6 (middle row) to 12 (bottom row). Both tetraspanin biomarkers exhibit membranous staining.
Figure 2Representative immunohistochemistry. Tiles (A–C) (CD9) and (D–F) (COX2) display increasing expression from scores of 2 (top row), to 6 (middle row) to 12 (bottom row). CD9 demonstrates membranous staining, whereas COX2 shows predominantly cytoplasmic staining.
Figure 3Representative immunohistochemistry. Tiles (A–C) (EGFR) and (D–F) (Her2) display increasing expression from scores of 2 (top row), to 6 (middle row) to 12 (bottom row). The strongest her2 staining was scored as 3 out of 12 (F). Some cases demonstrated both cytoplasmic and membranous staining (E) and were considered as positive. Where only cytoplasmic staining occurred (D) this was considered as negative and given a score of 0.
Prognostic ability of individual biomarkers on univariate analysis using logistic and Cox regression (P-values)
| COX2 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| CD9 | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| CD151 | 0.02 | 0.33 |
| EGFR | 0.04 | 0.04 |
| CD82 | 0.62 | 0.69 |
| Her2 | 0.73 | 0.50 |
Figure 4(A–D) Oral cancer-free survival utilising different ordered scoring thresholds for CD9, CD151, EGFR, and COX2. .
Multivariate analysis demonstrating hazard ratios for the best combination of clinical factors and biomarkers in predicting malignant progression by backward-variable selection
| Grade | 1.64 (1.12, 2.40) | 0.01 | High grade |
| COX2 | 1.12 (1.02, 1.24) | 0.02 | High score |
| CD9 | 0.88 (0.80, 0.97) | 0.01 | Low score |
Abbreviation: CI=confidence interval.