MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total of 50 samples were selected for the study and were categorized into five groups and 10 samples in each group as Group I-oral leukoplakia (OL), Group II-oral lichen planus (OLP), Group III-oral submucous fibrosis (OSMF), Group IV-oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and Group V-normal oral mucosa (NOM) as control group. All the samples were assessed for the expression of E-cad by immunohistochemical study.
RESULTS: Upon assessing the expression of E-cad in OL, OSMF, OLP and OSCC, as majority of the samples with OSCC (90%), OL (80%), OLP (70%) and OSMF (60%) showed mild to moderate expression of E-cad staining, which was suggestive of reduction in dysplastic cells on comparison to NOM cells. This difference in expression and variation of E-cad upon comparison with normal mucosa was statistically significant (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: There is significant (P < 0.001) variation of expression of E-cad with the histopathological dysplasia of the oral precancerous lesions and conditions, and the tumor differentiation of the oral cancers. However, there was no correlation of the degree of loss of expression of E-cad with the degree of dysplasia or the tumor differentiation of oral cancers. We conclude with our study that, there is a variation in the expression of E-cad but its value as a prognostic marker is questionable.
METHODS: We analysed the expression of AR in 97 TNBC cases from Penang General Hospital for a period of 3 years (2014 to 2017). Androgen receptor immunoreactivity was considered positive if ≥ 1% of tumour cells nuclei were stained irrespective of staining intensity.
RESULTS: The prevalence of AR expression in TNBC was 31% (30/97), with the proportion of AR-positive tumour cells ranged from 1% to 90%. These include 23 invasive carcinomas, no special type (NST) and 7 other invasive carcinoma subtypes (papillary, lobular, clear cell and medullary carcinomas). Sixty-seven cases (69%) that showed AR immunonegativity were invasive carcinomas, NST (n=60), clear cell carcinoma (n=1) and metaplastic carcinoma (n=6). Androgen receptor immunoexpression was inversely correlated with tumour grade (p=0.016), but not the tumour stage, tumour size and nodal status.
CONCLUSION: AR is expressed in about one-third of TNBC and loss of AR immunoexpression does not predict adverse clinical outcomes. Larger cohorts for better characterisation of the role of AR immunoexpression in TNBC are warranted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design, cases of ovarian and breast cancer with clinical status of T2DM were selected over a 10-year period in Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia. Immunohistochemical staining for IGFBP-rP1 was performed on paraffin-embedded tissues and the results were correlated with the patient's demographic and clinicopathological data.
RESULTS: A total of 152 breast cancer patients were recruited into the current study with 33.5% (51/152) patients were positive T2DM. Most of the breast cancer patients with T2DM were IGFBP-rP1-negative (66.7%, 34/51). The IGFBP-rP1 expression was significantly difference between breast cancer subjects with and without T2DM (p<0.001). There was no significant association of IGFBP-rP1 expression with data on the demographic and clinicopathological profiles of patients with breast cancer. Meanwhile, positive IGFBP-rP1 expression was evident in 44 out of 108 (40.74%) ovarian cancer cases. Among these cases, 36 were T2DM. In contrast to breast cancer cases, IGFBP-rP1 was mostly expressed among ovarian cancer patients with T2DM (66.7%, 24/36, p < 0.001). However, the -positive expression was not significantly associated with any sociodemographic and clinicopathological features of ovarian cancers.
CONCLUSIONS: Majority of breast cancer patients with T2DM did not express IGFBP-rP1. In contrast, majority of the ovarian cancer patients with T2DM expressed IGFBP-rP1.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional comparative study comparing primary angle closure glaucoma (PACG) patients (Group A) with primary angle closure and primary angle closure suspect (Group B). Group A was treated with topical pressure-lowering drugs; Group B was not. Data on ocular diagnosis and details of treatment were obtained from medical records. Ocular surface disease incidence was assessed using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) questionnaire and from clinical signs using Schirmer's test, tear break-up time and corneal fluorescein stain. Predictive Analytic Software 20 and STATA analysis software were used for statistical analyses.
RESULTS: Group A demonstrated a higher rate of OSD (OSDI 52.3%, Schirmer's test 70.5%, tear break-up time (TBUT) 75%, corneal staining 77.3%) compared to Group B (OSDI 39.0%, Schirmer's test 73.2%, TBUT 58.5% and cornea staining 14.6%) except for Schirmer's test. There was a significant difference in mean score of OSDI (p=0.004), TBUT (p=0.008) and cornea staining (p<0.001) between two groups. Primary angle closure glaucoma treated with more than two medications and for more than three years had worse ocular surface disease parameters but without statistical significant difference.
CONCLUSION: Ocular surface disease is common in PACG patients treated with topical pressure-lowering drugs. Topical pressure-lowering drugs caused significant OSD symptoms and signs except for tear production in PACG patients. Thorough evaluation of ocular surface disease is important to ensure appropriate treatment and intervention in PACG patients.