Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: I. Breast Cancer
In gynecologic oncology valid prognostic factors are necessary to estimate the course of disease and to define biologically similar subgroups for analysis of therapeutic efficacy. The presented study is a prospective study concerning prognostic significance of DNA ploidy and S‐phase fraction in brea...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2002-01-01
|
| Series: | Analytical Cellular Pathology |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2002/630850 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832568258255912960 |
|---|---|
| author | Pauline Wimberger Peter Hillemanns Thomas Kapsner Hermann Hepp Rainer Kimmig |
| author_facet | Pauline Wimberger Peter Hillemanns Thomas Kapsner Hermann Hepp Rainer Kimmig |
| author_sort | Pauline Wimberger |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In gynecologic oncology valid prognostic factors are necessary to estimate the course of disease and to define biologically similar subgroups for analysis of therapeutic efficacy. The presented study is a prospective study concerning prognostic significance of DNA ploidy and S‐phase fraction in breast cancer following enrichment of tumor cells by cytokeratin labelling. Epithelial cells were labeled by FITC‐conjugated cytokeratin antibody (CK 5, 6, 8, and CK 17) prior to flow cytometric cell cycle analysis in 327 fresh specimens of primary breast cancer. Univariate analysis in breast cancer detected the prognostic significance of DNA‐ploidy, S‐phase fraction and CV (coefficient of variation) of G0G1‐peak of tumor cells for clinical outcome, especially for nodal‐negative patients. Multivariate analysis could not confirm prognostic evidence of DNA‐ploidy and S‐phase fraction. In conclusion, in breast cancer no clinical significance for determination of DNA‐parameters was found. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-f8a2e7bac8f94ce6bc17dc3c260e70df |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 0921-8912 1878-3651 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2002-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Analytical Cellular Pathology |
| spelling | doaj-art-f8a2e7bac8f94ce6bc17dc3c260e70df2025-02-03T00:59:30ZengWileyAnalytical Cellular Pathology0921-89121878-36512002-01-01244-513514510.1155/2002/630850Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: I. Breast CancerPauline Wimberger0Peter Hillemanns1Thomas Kapsner2Hermann Hepp3Rainer Kimmig4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, D‐45122 Essen, GermanyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ludwig‐Maximilians‐University, Marchioninistr. 15, D‐81377 Munich, GermanyDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Ludwig‐Maximilians‐University, Marchioninistr. 15, D‐81377 Munich, GermanyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ludwig‐Maximilians‐University, Marchioninistr. 15, D‐81377 Munich, GermanyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, D‐45122 Essen, GermanyIn gynecologic oncology valid prognostic factors are necessary to estimate the course of disease and to define biologically similar subgroups for analysis of therapeutic efficacy. The presented study is a prospective study concerning prognostic significance of DNA ploidy and S‐phase fraction in breast cancer following enrichment of tumor cells by cytokeratin labelling. Epithelial cells were labeled by FITC‐conjugated cytokeratin antibody (CK 5, 6, 8, and CK 17) prior to flow cytometric cell cycle analysis in 327 fresh specimens of primary breast cancer. Univariate analysis in breast cancer detected the prognostic significance of DNA‐ploidy, S‐phase fraction and CV (coefficient of variation) of G0G1‐peak of tumor cells for clinical outcome, especially for nodal‐negative patients. Multivariate analysis could not confirm prognostic evidence of DNA‐ploidy and S‐phase fraction. In conclusion, in breast cancer no clinical significance for determination of DNA‐parameters was found.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2002/630850 |
| spellingShingle | Pauline Wimberger Peter Hillemanns Thomas Kapsner Hermann Hepp Rainer Kimmig Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: I. Breast Cancer Analytical Cellular Pathology |
| title | Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: I. Breast Cancer |
| title_full | Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: I. Breast Cancer |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: I. Breast Cancer |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: I. Breast Cancer |
| title_short | Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: I. Breast Cancer |
| title_sort | evaluation of prognostic factors following flow cytometric dna analysis after cytokeratin labelling i breast cancer |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2002/630850 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT paulinewimberger evaluationofprognosticfactorsfollowingflowcytometricdnaanalysisaftercytokeratinlabellingibreastcancer AT peterhillemanns evaluationofprognosticfactorsfollowingflowcytometricdnaanalysisaftercytokeratinlabellingibreastcancer AT thomaskapsner evaluationofprognosticfactorsfollowingflowcytometricdnaanalysisaftercytokeratinlabellingibreastcancer AT hermannhepp evaluationofprognosticfactorsfollowingflowcytometricdnaanalysisaftercytokeratinlabellingibreastcancer AT rainerkimmig evaluationofprognosticfactorsfollowingflowcytometricdnaanalysisaftercytokeratinlabellingibreastcancer |