PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to clarify the clinical significance of MUC-1 expression in the endoscopic treatment of colorectal carcinoma with submucosal invasion. METHODS: One hundred eighty-four colorectal carcinomas with submucosal invasion were examined. The depth of submucosal invasion was classified as scanty or massive. The histologic subclassification at the deepest invasive portion was defined as well-differentiated, moderately well-differentiated, moderately to poorly differentiated, poorly differentiated, or mucinous adenocarcinoma. MUC-1 expression was examined immunohistochemically at the deepest invasive portion. In addition, the Ki67 labeling index was also examined immunohistochemically. RESULTS: Lymph node metastases were detected in 28 (15.2 percent) of 184 lesions. Lesions with both scanty submucosal invasion and well-differentiated or moderately well-differentiated adenocarcinomas had no lymph node metastases. MUC-1 expression was detected in 88 (47.8 percent) of 184 lesions and correlated significantly with the presence of lymph node metastases. The Ki67 labeling index also correlated significantly with lymph node metastases. Furthermore, lesions with both MUC-1-negative and low Ki67 labeling index showed no lymph node metastases, even in lesions with massive submucosal invasion. Multivariate analysis indicated that MUC-1 expression was one of the most important risk factors for lymph node metastases and histologic grade among the clinicopathologic factors usually examined. CONCLUSION: MUC-1 expression is one of the accurate predictors of the presence of lymph node metastases among the clinicopathologic factors commonly used. Combined analysis of MUC-1 expression and Ki67 labeling index may be a useful indicator of lymph node metastases and may broaden the indications for the curative endoscopic treatment of carcinoma with massive submucosal invasion.
PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to clarify the clinical significance of MUC-1 expression in the endoscopic treatment of colorectal carcinoma with submucosal invasion. METHODS: One hundred eighty-four colorectal carcinomas with submucosal invasion were examined. The depth of submucosal invasion was classified as scanty or massive. The histologic subclassification at the deepest invasive portion was defined as well-differentiated, moderately well-differentiated, moderately to poorly differentiated, poorly differentiated, or mucinous adenocarcinoma. MUC-1 expression was examined immunohistochemically at the deepest invasive portion. In addition, the Ki67 labeling index was also examined immunohistochemically. RESULTS: Lymph node metastases were detected in 28 (15.2 percent) of 184 lesions. Lesions with both scanty submucosal invasion and well-differentiated or moderately well-differentiated adenocarcinomas had no lymph node metastases. MUC-1 expression was detected in 88 (47.8 percent) of 184 lesions and correlated significantly with the presence of lymph node metastases. The Ki67 labeling index also correlated significantly with lymph node metastases. Furthermore, lesions with both MUC-1-negative and low Ki67 labeling index showed no lymph node metastases, even in lesions with massive submucosal invasion. Multivariate analysis indicated that MUC-1 expression was one of the most important risk factors for lymph node metastases and histologic grade among the clinicopathologic factors usually examined. CONCLUSION:MUC-1 expression is one of the accurate predictors of the presence of lymph node metastases among the clinicopathologic factors commonly used. Combined analysis of MUC-1 expression and Ki67 labeling index may be a useful indicator of lymph node metastases and may broaden the indications for the curative endoscopic treatment of carcinoma with massive submucosal invasion.
Authors: Kepal N Patel; Ellie Maghami; Volkert B Wreesmann; Ashok R Shaha; Jatin P Shah; Ronald Ghossein; Bhuvanesh Singh Journal: Surgery Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Upender Manne; Chandrakumar Shanmugam; Venkat R Katkoori; Harvey L Bumpers; William E Grizzle Journal: Cancer Biomark Date: 2010 Impact factor: 4.388