Cargando…

Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: II. Cervical and Endometrial Cancer

In gynecologic oncology valid prognostic factors are necessary to define biologically similar subgroups for analysis of therapeutic efficacy. This study is the first published prospective study concerning prognostic significance of DNA ploidy and S‐phase fraction in cervical and endometrial cancer f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wimberger, Pauline, Hillemanns, Peter, Kapsner, Thomas, Hepp, Hermann, Kimmig, Rainer
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: IOS Press 2002
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618827/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12590151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2002/346969
_version_ 1782396980331282432
author Wimberger, Pauline
Hillemanns, Peter
Kapsner, Thomas
Hepp, Hermann
Kimmig, Rainer
author_facet Wimberger, Pauline
Hillemanns, Peter
Kapsner, Thomas
Hepp, Hermann
Kimmig, Rainer
author_sort Wimberger, Pauline
collection PubMed
description In gynecologic oncology valid prognostic factors are necessary to define biologically similar subgroups for analysis of therapeutic efficacy. This study is the first published prospective study concerning prognostic significance of DNA ploidy and S‐phase fraction in cervical and endometrial cancer following enrichment of tumor cells by cytokeratin labelling. Epithelial cells were labeled by FITC‐conjugated cytokeratin antibody (CK 5, 6, 8, and CK 17) prior to flow cytometric cell cycle analysis in 91 specimens of cervical cancer and 73 samples of endometrial cancer. In cervical cancer neither DNA‐ploidy nor S‐phase fraction were relevant prognostic parameters. But CV of the G0G1‐peak showed prognostic relevance in cervical cancer cells, even in multivariate analysis. This interesting observation, however, seems to have no therapeutic consequence due to the small discrimination capacity of CV. In endometrial carcinoma, gross DNA‐aneuploidy (DNA‐index > 1.3) and a high percentage of proliferating cells (>75th percentile) were univariate and multivariate highly significant prognostic factors for recurrence‐free survival. Especially DNA‐aneuploidy (DI>1.3) is one of the most important independent molecular biological prognostic factors. While diagnostic curettage we could identify risk patients even preoperatively by determination of the prognostic factors like histologic tumor type, grading, cervical involvement and DNA‐ploidy. Thereby these patients could be treated primarily in an oncologic center. In conclusion, our investigations showed that the determination of DNA‐ploidy should be done in endometrial carcinoma. In cervical cancer no clinical significance for determination of DNA‐parameters was found.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4618827
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2002
publisher IOS Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46188272016-01-12 Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: II. Cervical and Endometrial Cancer Wimberger, Pauline Hillemanns, Peter Kapsner, Thomas Hepp, Hermann Kimmig, Rainer Anal Cell Pathol Other In gynecologic oncology valid prognostic factors are necessary to define biologically similar subgroups for analysis of therapeutic efficacy. This study is the first published prospective study concerning prognostic significance of DNA ploidy and S‐phase fraction in cervical and endometrial cancer following enrichment of tumor cells by cytokeratin labelling. Epithelial cells were labeled by FITC‐conjugated cytokeratin antibody (CK 5, 6, 8, and CK 17) prior to flow cytometric cell cycle analysis in 91 specimens of cervical cancer and 73 samples of endometrial cancer. In cervical cancer neither DNA‐ploidy nor S‐phase fraction were relevant prognostic parameters. But CV of the G0G1‐peak showed prognostic relevance in cervical cancer cells, even in multivariate analysis. This interesting observation, however, seems to have no therapeutic consequence due to the small discrimination capacity of CV. In endometrial carcinoma, gross DNA‐aneuploidy (DNA‐index > 1.3) and a high percentage of proliferating cells (>75th percentile) were univariate and multivariate highly significant prognostic factors for recurrence‐free survival. Especially DNA‐aneuploidy (DI>1.3) is one of the most important independent molecular biological prognostic factors. While diagnostic curettage we could identify risk patients even preoperatively by determination of the prognostic factors like histologic tumor type, grading, cervical involvement and DNA‐ploidy. Thereby these patients could be treated primarily in an oncologic center. In conclusion, our investigations showed that the determination of DNA‐ploidy should be done in endometrial carcinoma. In cervical cancer no clinical significance for determination of DNA‐parameters was found. IOS Press 2002 2002-01-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4618827/ /pubmed/12590151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2002/346969 Text en Copyright © 2002 Hindawi Publishing Corporation.
spellingShingle Other
Wimberger, Pauline
Hillemanns, Peter
Kapsner, Thomas
Hepp, Hermann
Kimmig, Rainer
Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: II. Cervical and Endometrial Cancer
title Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: II. Cervical and Endometrial Cancer
title_full Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: II. Cervical and Endometrial Cancer
title_fullStr Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: II. Cervical and Endometrial Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: II. Cervical and Endometrial Cancer
title_short Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: II. Cervical and Endometrial Cancer
title_sort evaluation of prognostic factors following flow-cytometric dna analysis after cytokeratin labelling: ii. cervical and endometrial cancer
topic Other
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4618827/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12590151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2002/346969
work_keys_str_mv AT wimbergerpauline evaluationofprognosticfactorsfollowingflowcytometricdnaanalysisaftercytokeratinlabellingiicervicalandendometrialcancer
AT hillemannspeter evaluationofprognosticfactorsfollowingflowcytometricdnaanalysisaftercytokeratinlabellingiicervicalandendometrialcancer
AT kapsnerthomas evaluationofprognosticfactorsfollowingflowcytometricdnaanalysisaftercytokeratinlabellingiicervicalandendometrialcancer
AT hepphermann evaluationofprognosticfactorsfollowingflowcytometricdnaanalysisaftercytokeratinlabellingiicervicalandendometrialcancer
AT kimmigrainer evaluationofprognosticfactorsfollowingflowcytometricdnaanalysisaftercytokeratinlabellingiicervicalandendometrialcancer