Objective: The objective of this study was to use IHC to compare leptin and leptin receptor expressions in clear cell renal cell carcinomas (ccRCC) in non-obese and obese patients to determine the association between these proteins with the clinicopathological features and prognosis of ccRCC. Patients and Methods. The study involved 60 patients who underwent nephrectomy of which 34 were obese, as assessed using body mass index (BMI). Nephrectomy samples provided tissues of ccRCC and adjacent non-cancerous kidney. The intensity and localization of leptin and leptin receptor protein expressions were evaluated using IHC and correlated with clinicopathological features and clinical outcomes. Aperio ImageScope morphometry and digital pathology were applied to assess the IHC results. The chi-square test was used to determine if there was any significant association between the proteins and the clinicopathological features. The Kaplan-Meier test was used to determine the overall survival, disease-free survival, and recurrence-free survival. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: There was neither significant difference in the overall cellular and nuclear expressions of leptin and leptin receptor between non-cancerous kidney and ccRCC tissues nor in non-obese and obese individuals with ccRCC.
Conclusion: In this present study, it was revealed that leptin and leptin receptor were not associated with tumour characteristics and progression of ccRCC patients. Interestingly, nuclear expression of leptin was significantly associated with overall survival. However, the significance of these proteins as biomarkers in other RCC histotypes is still unclear.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 17 patients were selected fulfilling one of the Bethesda criteria: colorectal cancer diagnosed in a patient aged less than 50 years old, having synchronous and metachronous colorectal cancer or with a strong family history. Immunohistochemical staining was performed on paraffin embedded tumour tissue samples using four antibodies: MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2.
RESULTS: Twelve out of 17 patients (70.6%) were noted to have a family history. A total of 41% (n=7) of the patients had abnormal immunohistochemical staining with one or more of the four antibodies. Loss of expression were noted in 13 tumour tissues with a negative staining score <4. Of 13 tumour tissues, four showed loss expression of MLH1. For PMS2, loss of expression were noted in five cases. Both MSH2 and MSH6 showed loss of expression in two tumour tissues respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Revised Bethesda criteria and immunohistochemical analysis constituted a convenient approach and is recommended to be a first-line screening for Lynch syndrome in Malay cohorts.
METHOD: Relevant studies detecting SMAD4 expression in cancer patients treated with chemo-drugs up till December 2020 were systematically searched in four common scientific databases using selected keywords. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) was the ratio of hazard rate between SMAD4neg population vs SMAD4pos population. The HRs and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to explore the association between SMAD4 expression losses with drug resistance in cancers.
RESULT: After an initial screening according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis. There were a total of 2092 patients from all the included studies in this analysis. Results obtained indicated that loss of SMAD4 expression was significantly correlated with drug resistance with pooled HRs (95% CI) of 1.23 (1.01-1.45), metastasis with pooled RRs (95% CI) of 1.10 (0.97-1.25) and recurrence with pooled RRs (95% CI) of 1.32 (1.06-1.64). In the subgroup analysis, cancer type, drug type, sample size and antibody brand did not affect the significance of association between loss of SMAD4 expression and drug resistance. In addition, there was no evidence of publication bias as suggested by Begg's test.
CONCLUSION: Findings from our meta-analysis demonstrated that loss of SMAD4 expression was correlated with drug resistance, metastasis and recurrence. Therefore, SMAD4 expression could be potentially used as a molecular marker for cancer resistance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Immunohistochemical staining for CIP2A was performed on the tissue microarray sections of 105 PC, 27 HGPIN and 27 BPH tissues. The CIP2A expression scores were compared with several clinicopathological parameters.
RESULTS: CIP2A was expressed in 96,2% of PC, 55,6% of HGPIN and 40,7% of BPH tissues. The expression of CIP2A in PC was significantly higher than in HGPIN (p<0.0001) and BPH (p<0.0001) cases. CIP2A expression score was significantly associated with Gleason score (p=0.032) and lymphovascular invasion (p=0.039). Nevertheless, there was no statistically significant association between the expression of CIP2A and perineural invasion, pT stage, metastasis and recurrence (p>0.05). Multivariate analysis indicated that GS, lymphovascular invasion, distant metastasis were independent prognostic factors for PC patients but, CIP2A expression score was not found to be a prognostic factor. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the survival times of patients according to CIP2A expression (p=0.174).
CONCLUSIONS: According to our results, the expression of CIP2A protein is increased in PC and its expression may be involved in the development, differentiation, and aggressiveness of PC. However, further studies are needed to confirm our findings and to clarify the role of CIP2A in the development of PC.