p53 overexpression is associated with cytoreduction and response to chemotherapy in ovarian cancer

G Ferrandina, A Fagotti, M G Salerno, P G Natali, M Mottolese, F Maneschi, A De Pasqua, P Benedetti-Panici, S Mancuso, G Scambia, G Ferrandina, A Fagotti, M G Salerno, P G Natali, M Mottolese, F Maneschi, A De Pasqua, P Benedetti-Panici, S Mancuso, G Scambia

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the association of p53 status with primary cytoreduction, response to chemotherapy and outcome in stage III-IV primary ovarian cancer patients. Immunohistochemical analysis of p53 was performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens from 168 primary ovarian carcinomas by using the DO-7 monoclonal antibody. p53 nuclear positivity was found in 84 out of 162 (52%) malignant tumours. A higher percentage of p53 nuclear positivity was observed in patients with advanced stage of disease than in stage I-II (57% vs 23% respectively; P = 0.0022) and in poorly differentiated versus well/moderately differentiated tumours (59% vs 32% respectively; P = 0.0038). The multivariate analysis aimed to investigate the association of FIGO stage, grade and p53 status with primary cytoreduction in 136 stage III-IV patients showed that stage IV disease may influence the possibility to perform primary cytoreduction in ovarian cancer patients. p53-positivity also maintained a trend to be associated with poor chance of cytoreduction. In patients who underwent pathologic assessment of response, cases who did not respond to chemotherapy were much more frequently p53-positive than p53-negative (86% vs 14% respectively; P = 0.012). Moreover, patients with stage III disease and < 2-cm residual tumour were more likely to respond to treatment. In multivariate analysis, FIGO stage and p53 expression were independently correlated with pathologic response to chemotherapy. Time to progression and survival rates were shown not to be different in p53-positive versus p53-negative patients.

References

    1. Cancer. 1995 Oct 1;76(7):1201-8
    1. Cancer Res. 1996 May 1;56(9):2178-84
    1. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Feb;8(1):8-11
    1. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1996;122(8):489-94
    1. Cancer. 1996 Nov 15;78(10):2049-62
    1. Br J Cancer. 1997;75(2):230-5
    1. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1997 Apr;16(2):149-55
    1. Int J Cancer. 1997 Aug 22;74(4):407-15
    1. Gynecol Oncol. 1997 Sep;66(3):435-8
    1. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1997;123(9):496-501
    1. Cancer Res. 1998 Jun 1;58(11):2288-92
    1. Eur J Cancer. 1998 May;34(6):845-50
    1. Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966 Mar;50(3):163-70
    1. Gynecol Oncol. 1991 Mar;40(3):195-200
    1. Cancer Res. 1991 Jun 1;51(11):2979-84
    1. Br J Cancer. 1992 Jan;65(1):40-4
    1. Oncogene. 1992 Apr;7(4):743-9
    1. Cell. 1992 Jun 26;69(7):1237-45
    1. Obstet Gynecol. 1993 May;81(5 ( Pt 1)):643-50
    1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Jun 1;90(11):4961-5
    1. Int J Cancer. 1993 Oct 21;55(4):678-84
    1. J Clin Oncol. 1994 Jan;12(1):64-9
    1. Gynecol Oncol. 1994 Jun;53(3):301-6
    1. Cancer Res. 1994 Jul 1;54(13):3391-5
    1. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994 Nov;102(5):671-6
    1. J Clin Oncol. 1995 Jan;13(1):70-8
    1. Cancer. 1995 Mar 15;75(6):1327-38
    1. Br J Cancer. 1995 Aug;72(2):361-6
    1. Mol Carcinog. 1995 Dec;14(4):275-85
    1. Cancer Res. 1996 Feb 1;56(3):556-62
    1. Am J Clin Pathol. 1996 Mar;105(3):341-9
    1. Cancer Res. 1996 Feb 15;56(4):689-93

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel