| Literature DB >> 33967512 |
Prerna Chadha1, Richa Ranjan1, Nikhilesh Kumar1, Rig Vardhan1, Prashant Sengupta1, Rakhi Negi1.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) poses a major health problem and despite the advancements in its diagnosis and management the overall survival has not improved significantly. A search for newer diagnostic and prognostic markers along with fresh molecular targets is required for its prevention and cure. AIMS: The study aims to study the expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in HNSCCs and investigate its correlation with the clinicopathological profile of these cases. This study was performed to determine the significance of COX-2 expression in the Indian context. SETTINGS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Cyclooxygenase-2; head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; immunohistochemistry
Year: 2021 PMID: 33967512 PMCID: PMC8083447 DOI: 10.4103/jomfp.JOMFP_128_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Pathol ISSN: 0973-029X
Interpretation and scoring of cyclooxygenase-2 immunohistochemical staining
| Score | Surgical specimen - Staining pattern | COX2 expression assessment |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Weak staining in 0%- 10% of tumor cells | Negative |
| 1+ | Weak to moderate staining in 10%- 25% of tumor cells | Equivocal |
| 2+ | Moderate to strong staining in 25%- 50% of tumor cells | Positive |
| 3+ | Strong staining in 50%- 75% of tumor cells | Positive |
| 4+ | Strong staining in 75%- 100% of tumor cells | Positive |
COX-2: Cyclooxygenase-2
Figure 1H and E stain (×200). (a) Well differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. (b) Moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. (c) Poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma
Figure 2Cyclooxygenase-2 expression on immunohistochemistry (×200). a: 0, b: 1+
Figure 3Cyclooxygenase-2 expression on immunohistochemistry (×200) a: 2+, b: 3+, c: 4+
Association of cyclooxygenase-2 expression with clinicopathological and tumor, node, metastasis staging parameters
| Characteristic | Number of cases | Mean expression | SD | Statistical significance, |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade | ||||
| Well differentiated | 52 | 1.73 | 0.77 | 0.002 |
| Moderately differentiated | 37 | 2.30 | 0.78 | |
| Poorly differentiated | 1 | 1.00 | 0.00 | |
| Tumor size/clinical stage (T) | ||||
| T1 | 21 | 1.71 | 0.46 | 0.001 |
| T2 | 46 | 1.91 | 0.79 | |
| T3 | 11 | 1.64 | 0.81 | |
| T4 | 13 | 2.77 | 0.93 | |
| Nodal status (N) | ||||
| N0 | 67 | 1.84 | 0.665 | 0.024 |
| N1 | 15 | 2.47 | 0.83 | |
| N2 | 8 | 2.00 | 1.51 | |
| Distant metastasis (M) | ||||
| M0 | 88 | 1.95 | 0.83 | 0.939 |
| M1 | 2 | 2.00 | 0.00 | |
| Tumor depth (maximum) (cm) | ||||
| ≤0.5 | 7 | 1.57 | 0.54 | 0.019 |
| 0.5-1 | 44 | 2.05 | 0.81 | |
| 1- 1.5 | 17 | 1.65 | 0.86 | |
| 1.5- 2 | 12 | 1.75 | 0.62 | |
| >2 | 10 | 2.60 | 0.84 | |
| Lvi/Pni | ||||
| None | 71 | 1.85 | 0.71 | 0.005 |
| Lymphovascular | 17 | 2.24 | 1.03 | |
| Lympho + perineural | 2 | 3.50 | 0.71 |
Lvi: Lymphovascular invasion, Pni: Perineural invasion, SD: Standard deviation