Hoffmann, R. A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters. Nature Genetics (2008)

Editor

Personal info

View

About

Terms

Javascript disabled

Please enable Javascript support in your browser to use this application.

Instructions on how to enable JavaScript on different browsers can be found here: http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=23852.

[edit this page]

Zlobec, I. et al.

I. Zlobec, L. Terracciano, L. Tornillo, U. Günthert, T. Vuong, J.R. Jass, A. Lugli,

Role of RHAMM within the hierarchy of well-established prognostic factors in colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the independent prognostic effect of a panel of immunohistochemical protein markers in colorectal cancer (CRC) and determine their ranking among the established prognostic factors T stage, N stage, vascular invasion, tumour budding and tumour grade. DESIGN: A tissue microarray of 1420 CRCs was immunostained for 23 markers and mismatch repair (MMR) proteins. Immunoreactivity was assessed semi-quantitatively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to determine cut-off scores for tumour marker positivity. Survival time was investigated for each marker in multivariable analysis with T stage, N stage, vascular invasion, tumour budding and tumour grade. The hazard ratio (HR) was used to compare the prognostic effect of each marker on 5 year survival. RESULTS: To the standard prognostic features, only six markers added independent prognostic information including receptor for hyaluronic acid mediated motility (RHAMM) (HR = 2.39 (1.88 to 3.05)), epidermal growth factor receptor (HR = 1.65 (1.31 to 2.09)), tumour infiltrating lymphocytes (HR = 0.7 (0.54 to 0.92)), urokinase plasminogen activator (HR = 1.38 (1.09 to 1.75)), Raf-1 kinase inhibitor protein (HR = 0.75 (0.58 to 0.96)) and mammalian sterile 20-like kinase 1 (MST1) (HR = 0.75 (0.58 to 0.95). Diffuse (>90% staining) expression of RHAMM ranked above T stage, vascular invasion, tumour budding and tumour grade in terms of adverse prognostic significance and was associated with distant metastasis (p = 0.012) and with worse outcome in patients with metastatic disease (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: The strong adverse effect of RHAMM on outcome in addition to its position within the hierarchy of well-established prognostic factors suggest that RHAMM should be considered a more important prognosticator than tumour grade, tumour budding and vascular invasion in patients with CRC.[1]

References

Role of RHAMM within the hierarchy of well-established prognostic factors in colorectal cancer. Zlobec, I., Terracciano, L., Tornillo, L., Günthert, U., Vuong, T., Jass, J.R., Lugli, A. Gut (2008) [Pubmed]

Annotations and hyperlinks in this abstract are from individual authors of WikiGenes or automatically generated by the WikiGenes Data Mining Engine. The abstract is from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.About WikiGenes Open Access Licence Privacy Policy Terms of Use apsburg

The world's first wiki where authorship really matters (Nature Genetics, 2008). Due credit and reputation for authors. Imagine a global collaborative knowledge base for original thoughts. Search thousands of articles and collaborate with scientists around the globe.