Bcl-X expression in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Association with tumor progression and prognosis
Background and Objectives: Bcl‐2 family proteins are regulators of programmed cell death and important in the development and progression of human various tumors. The role of these proteins in the development, progression and differentiation of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is unclear. M...
Saved in:
Published in | Journal of surgical oncology Vol. 78; no. 2; pp. 116 - 123 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
New York
John Wiley & Sons, Inc
01.10.2001
Wiley-Liss |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Background and Objectives:
Bcl‐2 family proteins are regulators of programmed cell death and important in the development and progression of human various tumors. The role of these proteins in the development, progression and differentiation of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is unclear.
Methods:
We investigated the expression of Bcl‐2, Bcl‐X, and Bax using immunohistochemistry in 86 ESCCs, and scored the expression by the weighted score.
Results:
Bcl‐2 expression related to pT category (P=0.043) and histological grade (P = 0.001). Bcl‐X expression related to pT category (P = 0.003), pN category (P = 0.041) and the number of positive nodes (P = 0.036), and had a tendency to relate to histological grade (P = 0.086). Bax expression had a tendency to relate to pN category (P = 0.081). The inverse relationship between Bcl‐2 and Bcl‐X expression was detected (P = 0.001), while the positive one between Bcl‐X and Bax expression was detected (P = 0.014). Patients with low Bcl‐X weighted score had a significantly longer survival compared with those with high Bcl‐X weighted score. Multivariate analysis revealed Bcl‐X expression as the independent prognostic factors (P = 0.022).
Conclusion:
These results imply that Bcl‐2 family proteins, especially Bcl‐X, may contribute to the progression in ESCC. J. Surg. Oncol. 2001;78:116–123. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | istex:F93594712CA0E23127B26968D57CFF7EAB954A8B ark:/67375/WNG-D4J5S0ZG-P ArticleID:JSO1130 ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 0022-4790 1096-9098 |
DOI: | 10.1002/jso.1130 |