| Literature DB >> 33639646 |
Anshul Bharti1, Aadithya B Urs1, Priya Kumar1.
Abstract
Backgroud: In the microenvironment of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma (OSCC), Hypoxia-inducible transcription factor 1 (HIF-1) is a very important chemical mediator in the microenvironment of OSCC through which cells respond to hypoxia. LOXL-2 participates in ECM remodelling, and also in regulating epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, epithelial cell polarity and differentiation. Aim/material and methods: The present study was conducted on 90 histopathologically proven cases of OSCC to ascertain the role of HIF-1α and LOXL-2 in OSCC. Immunoexpression of both HIF-1α and LOXL-2 was analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively and compared with tumor stage, nodal stage, clinical stage, and histological grade.Entities:
Keywords: HIF-1α; LOXL-2; Squamous Cell Carcinoma; oral
Year: 2021 PMID: 33639646 PMCID: PMC8190371 DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2021.22.2.341
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev ISSN: 1513-7368
Figure 1HIF-1α Immunoexpression: a- staining extent 3 and intensity of 1, b- staining extent 3 and intensity of 3. LOXL-2 immunoexpression: c- staining extent 2 and intensity of 2, d- staining extent 3 and intensity of 3. (40X)
Figure 2a- Nuclear and cytoplasmic staining are strong (A), b- Nuclear staining is strong, cytoplasmic staining is weak (B), c- Nuclear staining is weak, cytoplasmic staining is strong (C), and d-Both nuclear and cytoplasmic staining are weak (D). (40X)
Comparison of Clinicopathological Parameters with the HIF-1α and LOXL-2 Immunoexpressions Using Kruskal-Wallis Test
| Clinico-Pathological Parameter | No. of cases | HIF-1α expression | LOXL-2 expression | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean rank | p- value | Mean rank | p-value | |||
| Tumor stage (T) | Total | 90 | 0.008* | 0.968 | ||
| T1 | 21 | 62.6 | 45.5 | |||
| T2 | 33 | 41.29 | 46.68 | |||
| T3 | 8 | 38.62 | 43.31 | |||
| T4a | 28 | 39.61 | 44.73 | |||
| Nodal stage (N) | Total | 90 | 0.821 | 0.988 | ||
| N0 | 31 | 43.18 | 46.19 | |||
| N1 | 42 | 45.13 | 43.99 | |||
| N2a | 4 | 57.62 | 47.12 | |||
| N2b | 10 | 50.45 | 48.2 | |||
| N2c | 3 | 42 | 48.33 | |||
| Clinical Stage | Total | 90 | 0.095 | 0.979 | ||
| I | 12 | 57.25 | 46.42 | |||
| II | 13 | 32.15 | 48.04 | |||
| III | 28 | 48.68 | 45.23 | |||
| IVa | 37 | 43.97 | 44.51 | |||
| Histological grade | Total | 90 | 0.072 | 0.263 | ||
| I | 38 | 50.17 | 47.39 | |||
| II | 38 | 38.18 | 40.76 | |||
| III | 14 | 52.68 | 53.21 | |||
*, indicates significant result
Comparison of Cellular Localization of LOXL-2 Immunoexpression with Clinicopathological Parameters
| Clinico- Pathological Parameters | No. of cases | A | B | C | D | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor stage (T) | Total | 90 | 0.682 | ||||
| T1 | 21 | 7 | 0 | 5 | 9 | ||
| T2 | 33 | 4 | 1 | 14 | 14 | ||
| T3 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 | ||
| T4a | 28 | 4 | 1 | 12 | 11 | ||
| Nodal stage (N0) | Total | 90 | 0.038* | ||||
| N0 | 31 | 6 | 2 | 16 | 7 | ||
| N1 | 42 | 4 | 0 | 15 | 23 | ||
| N2a | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | ||
| N2b | 10 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 5 | ||
| N2c | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Clinical Stage (TNM) | Total | 90 | 0.511 | ||||
| I | 12 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 4 | ||
| II | 13 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 2 | ||
| III | 28 | 4 | 0 | 9 | 15 | ||
| IVa | 37 | 7 | 1 | 12 | 17 | ||
| Histological Grade | Total | 90 | 0.518 | ||||
| I | 38 | 8 | 1 | 14 | 15 | ||
| II | 38 | 4 | 1 | 14 | 19 | ||
| III | 14 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 4 | ||
| Areca nut Habit | Total | 90 | 0.097 | ||||
| Present | 63 | 15 | 2 | 24 | 22 | ||
| Absent | 27 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 16 | ||
*, indicates significant result
Figure 3Correlation between HIF-1α and LOXL-2 Expression in OSCC Cases