| Literature DB >> 26019601 |
Georgi Mishev1, Elitsa Deliverska2, Ruslan Hlushchuk1, Nikolay Velinov1, Daniel Aebersold3, Felix Weinstein1, Valentin Djonov1.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is a correlation between the expressions of four matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs): MMP-2, MMP-7, MMP-9 and MMP-13, and the TNM (tumour-node-metastasis) stages of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC); and to explore the implication of these MMPs in OSCC dissemination. Samples from 61 patients diagnosed with oropharyngeal tumour were studied by immunohistochemistry against MMP-2, MMP-7, MMP-9 and MMP-13. The assessment of immunoreactivity was semi-quantitative. The results showed that MMP-2 and MMP-9 had similar expression patterns in the tumour cells with no changes in the immunoreactivity during tumour progression. MMP-9 always had the highest expression, whereas that of MMP-2 was moderate. MMP-7 showed a significant decrease in expression levels during tumour evolution. MMP-13 had constant expression levels within stage T2 and T3, but showed a remarkable decline in immunoreactivity in stage T4. No significant differences in the MMPs immunoreactivity between tumour cells and stroma were observed. Although strong evidence for the application of MMPs as reliable predictive markers for node metastasis was not acquired, we believe that combining patients' MMPs expression intensity and clinical features may improve the diagnosis and prognosis. Strong evidence for the application of MMPs as reliable predictive markers for node metastasis was not acquired. Application of MMPs as prognostic indicators for the malignancy potential of OSCC might be considered in every case of tumour examination. We believe that combining patients' MMPs expression intensity and clinical features may improve the process of making diagnosis and prognosis.Entities:
Keywords: matrix metalloproteinase; oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma; tumour progression
Year: 2014 PMID: 26019601 PMCID: PMC4433935 DOI: 10.1080/13102818.2014.967510
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip ISSN: 1310-2818 Impact factor: 1.632
Clinical data about the patients and the tumours.
| Patients’ details | Number of patients |
|---|---|
| Age (41–85) | |
| Gender | |
| Male | 44 (72%) |
| Female | 17 (28%) |
| T classification | |
| 2 | 6 (10%) |
| 3 | 16 (26%) |
| 4 | 39 (64%) |
| Tumour grade | |
| I | 5 (8%) |
| II | 42 (69%) |
| III | 14 (23%) |
| N classification | |
| N0 | 16 (26%) |
| N1 | 8 (13%) |
| N2 | 29 (48%) |
| N3 | 8 (26%) |
| Distant metastasis | |
| Yes | 50 (82%) |
| No | 11 (18%) |
| Smoking habits | |
| Smoker | 52 (85%) |
| Non-smoker | 9 (15%) |
| Alcohol-consumption habits | |
| Drinker | 52 (85%) |
| Non-drinker | 9 (15%) |
Figure 1. Immunoreactivity for MMP-2 (a and b): immunopositive vessels (arrows); St = stroma; Tu = tumour. Correlation between MMP-2 expression intensity and tumour stage (c); lymph-node involvement (d).
Intensity of distribution of Tu and stromal staining for MMP-2.
| MMP-2 | Intensity of Tu staining | Intensity of stromal staining | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intensity grade | Weak | Strong | Weak | Strong | ||||
| Tu stage | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Tu2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Tu3 | 0 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 0 | 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Tu4 | 0 | 7 | 15 | 16 | 0 | 10 | 17 | 11 |
| Total | 11 (18%) | 50 (82%) | 14 (23%) | 47 (77%) | ||||
| Node (−)neg. | 0 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 8 | 4 |
| Total | 4 (7%) | 12 (20%) | 4 (7%) | 12 (20%) | ||||
| Node (+)pos. | 0 | 7 | 18 | 20 | 0 | 10 | 20 | 15 |
| Total | 7 (11%) | 38 (62%) | 10 (16%) | 35 (57%) | ||||
Note: Tu – Tumour.
Node (−) neg. – Lymph-node involvement.
Node (+)pos. – Lymph-node involvement.
Figure 2. Immunoreactivity for MMP-7 (a and b): St = stroma; Tu = tumour. Correlation between MMP-7 expression intensity and tumour stage (c); lymph-node involvement (d).
Irrespective of the intensity distribution of stromal staining for MMP-7 corresponded to the intratumoural pattern.
| MMP-7 | Intensity of Tu staining | Intensity of stromal staining | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intensity grade | Weak | Strong | Weak | Strong | ||||
| Tu stage | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Tu2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
| Tu3 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 11 | 0 | 3 | 13 | 1 |
| Tu4 | 0 | 2 | 16 | 20 | 0 | 2 | 29 | 7 |
| Total | 2 (2%) | 59 (98%) | 5 (8%) | 56 (92%) | ||||
| Node(–)neg. | 0 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 1 |
| Total | 1 (2%) | 15 (24%) | 3 (5%) | 13 (21%) | ||||
| Node(+)pos. | 0 | 1 | 18 | 26 | 0 | 2 | 34 | 9 |
| Total | 1 (2%) | 44 (72%) | 2 (3%) | 43 (71%) | ||||
Figure 3. Immunoreactivity for MMP-9 (a and b): keratinized pearl (asterisk); St = stroma; Tu = tumour. Correlation between MMP-9 expression intensity and tumour stage (c); lymph-node involvement (d).
Irrespective of lymph-node involvement, the intensity distribution of stromal staining for MMP-9 corresponded to the intratumoural pattern.
| MMP-9 | Intensity of Tu staining | Intensity of stromal staining | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intensity grade | Weak | Strong | Weak | Strong | ||||
| Tu stage | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Tu2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Tu3 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 3 |
| Tu4 | 0 | 1 | 11 | 26 | 2 | 6 | 28 | 2 |
| Total | 1 (2%) | 60 (98%) | 10 (16%) | 51 (84%) | ||||
| Node(−) neg. | 0 | 0 | 7 | 9 | 0 | 3 | 11 | 2 |
| Total | 0 (0%) | 16 (26%) | 3 (5%) | 13 (21%) | ||||
| Node(+) pos. | 0 | 1 | 12 | 32 | 2 | 5 | 33 | 5 |
| Total | 1 (2%) | 44 (72%) | 7 (11%) | 38 (63%) | ||||
Figure 4. Immunoreactivity for MMP-13 (a and b): St = stroma; Tu = tumour. Correlation between MMP-13 expression intensity and tumour stage (c); lymph-node involvement (d). N.B.: For the analyses of MMP-13 a sufficiency of tissue was available from only 57 of the 61 patients.
Irrespective of lymph-node involvement, the intensity distribution of stromal staining for MMP-13 corresponded to the intratumoural pattern.
| MMP-13 | Intensity of Tu staining | Intensity of stromal staining | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intensity grade | Weak | Strong | Weak | Strong | ||||
| Tu stage | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Tu2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Tu3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| Tu4 | 2 | 13 | 13 | 9 | 0 | 16 | 16 | 5 |
| Total | 19 (33%) | 38 (67%) | 22 (39%) | 35 (61%) | ||||
| Node(−) neg. | 2 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 6 | 5 | 5 |
| Total | 5 (9%) | 11 (19%) | 6 (11%) | 10 (18%) | ||||
| Node(+) pos. | 1 | 13 | 13 | 14 | 0 | 16 | 19 | 6 |
| Total | 14 (25%) | 27 (47%) | 16 (28%) | 25 (44%) | ||||
Figure 5. Distribution of MMP expression intensity (%) according to keratinization grades (a), structure grades (b), nuclear polymorphism grades (c) and host reaction grades (d).