Asha Mahadevappa1, Shruthi Mysore Krishna2, Manjunath Gubbanna Vimala3. 1. Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, JSS Medical College, JSS University , Mysuru, Karnataka, India . 2. Post Graduate Student, Department of Pathology, JSS Medical College, JSS University , Mysuru, Karnataka, India . 3. Professor and Head, Department of Pathology, JSS Medical College, JSS University , Mysuru, Karnataka, India .
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Surface Epithelial Ovarian Carcinoma (SEOC) at the moment of diagnosis, the disease is extended beyond the structures of the pelvis. Ki-67 is one of the prognostic marker which determines the growth fraction of a tumour and its over expression is associated with malignancy, tumour aggression, reserved prognosis and metastasis. AIM: To evaluate the proliferative activity using Ki-67 immuno-staining in SEOC and to correlate with histological subtype, grade, Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, CA125 levels for diagnostic and prognostic purpose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in JSS Medical College and Hospital, JSS University, Mysuru. It was a descriptive cross-sectional study involving 40 cases of SEOC over a period of two years. The proliferation expression related to Ki-67 antigen was evaluated by immunohistochemical monoclonal MIB-1 antibody. In each case, the Ki-67 labeling index (Ki-67 LI) was articulated as percentage of positively stained cells using high power objective of the microscope (x400). RESULTS: Among the 40 carcinomas, 26 were serous, five mucinous, four each of clear cell and undifferentiated and one transitional cell carcinoma. A total of 75% were high grade tumours. High Ki-67 LI was associated with high grade tumours (69.9%), high grade serous tumours (65.34%) and advanced FIGO staging (70.6%) with the p-value of <0.001. CA 125 levels did not have a significant correlation with Ki-67 LI. CONCLUSION: Ki-67 is an exceptionally a cost effective marker to determine the growth fraction of a tumour cell population. In SEOC histological grade and FIGO stage when combined with Ki-67 LI in histopathology report would help in diagnostic differentiation of subtypes, prognostication, deciding the need for adjuvant chemotherapy and in predicting survival analysis.
INTRODUCTION: The Surface Epithelial Ovarian Carcinoma (SEOC) at the moment of diagnosis, the disease is extended beyond the structures of the pelvis. Ki-67 is one of the prognostic marker which determines the growth fraction of a tumour and its over expression is associated with malignancy, tumour aggression, reserved prognosis and metastasis. AIM: To evaluate the proliferative activity using Ki-67 immuno-staining in SEOC and to correlate with histological subtype, grade, Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, CA125 levels for diagnostic and prognostic purpose. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted in JSS Medical College and Hospital, JSS University, Mysuru. It was a descriptive cross-sectional study involving 40 cases of SEOC over a period of two years. The proliferation expression related to Ki-67 antigen was evaluated by immunohistochemical monoclonal MIB-1 antibody. In each case, the Ki-67 labeling index (Ki-67 LI) was articulated as percentage of positively stained cells using high power objective of the microscope (x400). RESULTS: Among the 40 carcinomas, 26 were serous, five mucinous, four each of clear cell and undifferentiated and one transitional cell carcinoma. A total of 75% were high grade tumours. High Ki-67 LI was associated with high grade tumours (69.9%), high grade serous tumours (65.34%) and advanced FIGO staging (70.6%) with the p-value of <0.001. CA 125 levels did not have a significant correlation with Ki-67 LI. CONCLUSION: Ki-67 is an exceptionally a cost effective marker to determine the growth fraction of a tumour cell population. In SEOC histological grade and FIGO stage when combined with Ki-67 LI in histopathology report would help in diagnostic differentiation of subtypes, prognostication, deciding the need for adjuvant chemotherapy and in predicting survival analysis.
Authors: J Engel; R Eckel; G Schubert-Fritschle; J Kerr; W Kuhn; J Diebold; R Kimmig; J Rehbock; D Hölzel Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: J Gerdes; L Li; C Schlueter; M Duchrow; C Wohlenberg; C Gerlach; I Stahmer; S Kloth; E Brandt; H D Flad Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 1991-04 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Ramtin Rahmanzadeh; Prakash Rai; Jonathan P Celli; Imran Rizvi; Bettina Baron-Lühr; Johannes Gerdes; Tayyaba Hasan Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: J Kaern; M Aghmesheh; J M Nesland; H E Danielsen; B Sandstad; M Friedlander; C Tropé Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.437