| Literature DB >> 30339710 |
Shahida Tasneem1, Muhammad Tahir Sarwar1, Muhammad Rizwan Bashir2,3, Hamid Hussain4, Jawad Ahmed1, Shahid Pervez5.
Abstract
Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is one of the aggressive malignancies and mechanisms underlying its pathogenesis remain unclear. Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) enzyme system plays a crucial role in many gastrointestinal malignancies and is an important regulator of cell growth, proliferation, apoptosis, differentiation and transformation. More precise outcome of COX-2 in ESCC is less investigated. In this study we investigated the risk factors of ESCC and expression of COX-2 in Carcinoma in situ (CIS) and ESCC compared to normal esophageal mucosa. ESCC relationship to clinico-pathological parameters using immunohistochemistry was also part of this investigation. Current study was conducted in the Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Pakistan. A total of 69 diagnosed patients of ESCC, both Pakistanis and Afghans were enrolled. Various risk factors associated with ESCC were recorded. Mean age at the time of diagnosis was 55 years. Out of 69 patients of ESCC 46 (67%) were users of dipping tobacco (Naswar). Expression of COX-2 was determined in normal esophageal mucosa, CIS and invasive ESCC using Immunohistochemistry (IHC). Differences of mean were computed using ANOVA followed by applying Post Hoc test. Patients were categorized as positive with high expression or negative with low to nil expression. ANOVA showed large differences in expression of COX-2 in normal healthy mucosa compared with CIS and ESCC with the mean difference of -9.529 and -7.370 respectively, p-value being <.05 at 95% confidence interval (CI). No significant difference was noticed in the expression of COX-2 in CIS compared with ESCC with p-value >.05 at 95% CI. Our complete cohort (23-85 years) showed statistically significant difference in the expression of COX-2 gene in ESCC and CIS tissue samples compared with normal healthy mucosa. Results of this study indicate that over-expression of COX-2 is positively associated with ESCC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30339710 PMCID: PMC6195262 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205508
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Frequency of naswar use in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa region of Pakistan.
| Tissue type | Naswar use | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| User: N (%) | Non-user: N (%) | N (%) | |
| ESCC | 46 (67) | 23 (33) | 69 (100) |
ESCC: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Fig 1Use of naswar in Pakistani and Afghan patients suffering from esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).
Fig 2Expression of COX-2 in normal healthy mucosa, CIS and ESCC.
Fig 3Immuno-histochemical expression of COX-2 in carcinoma in situ.
Staining (membranous and cytoplasmic) in upper 2/3rd of mucosa (green arrow head) (A) at low power magnification (10x) (B) at high power magnification (40x).
COX-2 IHC Score using ANOVA between groups.
| Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1758.16 | 2 | 879.078 | 48.294 | 0.001 | |
df: degree of freedom, F: ratio of means square.
COX-2 IHC Score Tukey HSD: Multiple comparisons.
| Dependent Variable: | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (I) Tissue type | (J)Tissue type | Mean Difference (I-J) | 95% Confidence Interval | ||
| Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||||
| CIS | -9.529 | 0.001 | -12.35 | -6.71 | |
| ESCC | -7.370 | 0.001 | -9.38 | -5.36 | |
| Normal | 9.529 | 0.001 | 6.71 | 12.35 | |
| ESCC | 2.159 | 0.128 | -0.46 | 4.78 | |
| Normal | 7.370 | 0.001 | 5.36 | 9.38 | |
| CIS | -2.159 | 0.128 | -4.78 | 0.46 | |
CIS, Carcinoma in situ; ESCC, Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
* Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.
Correlation of COX immuno-histochemical expression with clinico-pathological parameters.
| Clinico-pathological parameters | Negative expression | Overexpression | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |||
| 8 (29) | 20 (71) | 28(100) | 0.488 | ||
| 15 (37) | 26 (63) | 41(100) | |||
| 69 (100) | |||||
| 13 22) | 33 (78) | 46(100) | 0.206 | ||
| 10 (25) | 13 (75) | 23(100) | |||
| 69 (100) | |||||
| 16 (35) | 30 (65) | 46 (100) | 0.718 | ||
| 7 (30) | 16 (70) | 23(100) | |||
| 69 (100) | |||||
| 7 (27) | 19 (73) | 26(100) | 0.38 | ||
| 16 (37) | 27 (63) | 43(100) | |||
| 69 (100) | |||||
| 3 (25) | 9 (75) | 12(100) | 0.74 | ||
| 15 (37) | 26 (63) | 41(100) | |||
| 5 (31) | 11 (69) | 16 (100) | |||
| 69 (100) | |||||
| 9 (35) | 17 (65) | 26 (100) | 0.588 | ||
| 10 (38) | 16 (62) | 26 (100) | |||
| 4 (24) | 13 (76) | 17(100) | |||
| 69 (100) | |||||
| 8 (36) | 14 (64) | 22 (100) | 0.541 | ||
| 9 (39) | 14 (61) | 23 (100) | |||
| 6 (29) | 15 (71) | 21 (100) | |||
| 0 (00) | 3 (100) | 3 (100) | |||
| 69 (100) | |||||
| 8(40) | 12 (60) | 20 (100) | 0.547 | ||
| 10 (38.5) | 16 (61.5) | 26 (100) | |||
| 4 (21) | 15(79) | 19 (100) | |||
| 1 (25) | 3 (75) | 4 (100) | |||
| 69 (100) | |||||
| 0(0) | 2 (100) | 2(100) | 0.583 | ||
| 14 (33) | 28 (66) | 42(100) | |||
| 9(36) | 16 (54) | 25(100) | |||
| 69 (100) | |||||
Key: ESCC, Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma; L.N, Lymph Node; NX, cannot be assessed; N0, no regional lymph node metastasis; N1, regional lymph node metastasis involving 1–2 lymph node; N2, regional lymph node metastasis involving 3–6 lymph node; N, Number; T1, tumor invades lamina propria or submucosa; T2, tumor invades muscularis propria; T3, tumor invades adventitia; T4, tumor invades adjacent structures; Tumor grade, (I: well differentiated, II: moderately differentiated, III: Poorly differentiated, According to AJCC Staging).
Fig 4Immuno-histochemical expression of COX-2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Staining (membranous & cytoplasmic) (A) at low power magnification (10x). (B) at high power magnification [40x].