| Literature DB >> 28210516 |
Nikolaos Koletsas1, Triantafyllia Koletsa2, Spyros Choidas1, Konstantinos Anagnostopoulos3, Stavros Touloupidis4, Thomas Zaramboukas2, Georgia Raptou2, Nikolaos Papadopoulos5, Maria Lambropoulou5.
Abstract
Background. Several investigators have suggested the possibility that the expression of both EGFR and HER2 could be utilized for molecularly targeted therapy in urinary bladder cancer. We tried to evaluate the expression of HER2 and EGFR and activation of the AKT/PTEN/mTOR pathway in urothelial carcinomas and if there is any association between them and cellular adhesion molecules (CAMs). Materials and Methods. Forty-one paraffin-embedded urothelial cancer tissue blocks were collected. Immunostains for HER2, EGFR, MIB1, phospho-AKT, PTEN, phospho-mTOR, e-cadherin, p-cadherin, and b-catenin were performed on tissue microarrays sections. The immunohistochemical results were correlated with clinicopathological parameters. Results. The overexpression of HER2 was found in 19.6% of the cases and it was associated with high grade tumors with a high mitotic index and phosphorylation of AKT and mTOR. Muscle-invasive tumors presented both cytoplasmic and nuclear losses of PTEN expression. There was no association between HER/AKT/mTOR pathway activation and CAM expression. Although cadherins were often coexpressed, only p-cadherin immunoreactivity was associated with tumor grade and high proliferative index. Conclusions. HER2 overexpression is found in a respective proportion of urothelial carcinomas. P-cadherin expression is associated with high grade UCs but it is not affected by HER2 overexpression or by activation of HER/AKT/mTOR pathway.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28210516 PMCID: PMC5292159 DOI: 10.1155/2017/6794150
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Patholog Res Int ISSN: 2042-003X
Clinicopathologic characteristics of the tumors.
|
| % | |
|---|---|---|
| pTa | 22 | 53.6 |
| pT1 | 6 | 14.7 |
| pT2 | 9 | 21.9 |
| pT3 | 2 | 4.9 |
| pT4 | 2 | 4.9 |
| Low grade | 19 | 46.3 |
| High grade | 22 | 53.7 |
| <3 cm | 24 | 58.5 |
| ≥3 cm | 17 | 41.5 |
| One lesion | 20 | 48.8 |
| Multifocal | 17 | 41.4 |
| Missing data | 4 | 9.8 |
Immunohistochemical distribution of the examined markers.
|
| % | |
|---|---|---|
| HER2 | ||
| 0 | 8 | 19.5 |
| 1+ | 14 | 34.1 |
| 2+ | 11 | 26.8 |
| 3+ | 8 | 19.6 |
|
| ||
| EGFR | ||
| Negative | 27 | 65.9 |
| Positive | 14 | 34.1 |
|
| ||
| pAKT nuclear | ||
| Negative | 17 | 41.5 |
| Positive | 24 | 58.5 |
|
| ||
| pAKT cytoplasmic | ||
| Negative | 29 | 70.7 |
| Positive | 12 | 29.3 |
|
| ||
| PTEN cytoplasmic | ||
| Negative | 19 | 47.5 |
| Positive | 21 | 52.5 |
| Missing data | 1 | — |
|
| ||
| PTEN nuclear | ||
| Negative | 31 | 77.5 |
| Positive | 9 | 22.5 |
| Missing data | 1 | — |
|
| ||
| PTEN nuclear/cytoplasmic | ||
| Negative | 10 | 25 |
| Positive | 30 | 75 |
| Missing data | 1 | — |
|
| ||
| pmTOR | ||
| Negative | 19 | 46.3 |
| Positive | 22 | 53.7 |
|
| ||
| MIB1 | ||
| ≤20 | 23 | 56.1 |
| >20 | 18 | 43.9 |
|
| ||
| e-cadherin | ||
| Negative | 16 | 45.7 |
| Positive | 19 | 54.3 |
| Missing data | 6 | — |
|
| ||
| p-cadherin | ||
| Negative | 20 | 58.8 |
| Positive | 14 | 41.2 |
| Missing data | 7 | — |
|
| ||
| b-catenin | ||
| Negative | 10 | 28.6 |
| Positive | 25 | 71.4 |
| Missing data | 6 | — |
Figure 1A case of high grade infiltrative urothelial carcinoma (a) presenting HER2 overexpression (b), pAKT (c) and pmTOR (d) expression, loss of PTEN expression (e), and high MIB1 labeling index (f). ((a) HE ×200; (b–f) IHC ×200).
Immunoexpression of the markers according to tumors invasiveness.
| Muscle-invasive UC (pT2–pT4) | Non-muscle-invasive UC (pTa-pT1) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| HER2 | |||
| 0 | 4 | 4 | 0.252 |
| 1 | 3 | 11 | |
| 2 | 2 | 9 | |
| 3 | 4 | 4 | |
|
| |||
| EGFR | |||
| Negative | 10 | 17 | 0.308 |
| Positive | 3 | 11 | |
|
| |||
| pAKT | |||
| Nuclear positive | 16 | 8 | 0.790 |
| Nuclear negative | 5 | 12 | |
|
| |||
| pAKT | |||
| Cytopl positive | 2 | 9 | 0.315 |
| Cytopl negative | 11 | 19 | |
|
| |||
| pmTOR | |||
| Negative | 9 | 10 |
|
| Positive | 4 | 18 | |
|
| |||
| PTEN | |||
| Nuclear positive | 1 | 8 | 0.120 |
| Nuclear negative | 12 | 19 | |
| Missing data | 0 | 1 | |
|
| |||
| PTEN | |||
| Cytopl positive | 3 | 18 |
|
| Cytopl negative | 10 | 9 | |
| Missing data | 0 | 1 | |
|
| |||
| e-cadherin | |||
| Negative | 4 | 12 | 0.668 |
| Positive | 6 | 13 | |
| Missing data | 3 | 3 | |
|
| |||
| p-cadherin | |||
| Negative | 4 | 16 | 0.307 |
| Positive | 5 | 9 | |
| Missing data | 4 | 3 | |
|
| |||
| b-catenin | |||
| Negative | 2 | 8 | 0.518 |
| Positive | 8 | 17 | |
| Missing data | 3 | 3 | |
Cytopl: cytoplasmic; UC: urothelial carcinomas.
Figure 2CAM expression in different urothelial tumors. A case of noninfiltrative high grade urothelial carcinoma positive for e-cadherin (a), p-cadherin (b), and b-catenin (c) markers, in contrast to high grade infiltrative urothelial carcinoma with sarcomatoid features, exhibited no or weak expression in few cells to e-cadherin (d), p-cadherin (e), and b-catenin (f) antibodies ((a–f) IHC ×400).