Table_3_Cyclooxygenase-2 and β-Catenin as Potential Diagnostic and Prognostic Markers in Endometrial Cancer.docx
Objectives: Explore the diagnostic and prognostic value of cyclooxygenase-2 and wnt3a/β-catenin pathway in endometrial cancer.
Methods: A prospective cohort study of 93 women underwent hysterectomy at the China-Japan Friendship Hospital (61 patients with primary endometrial carcinoma, and 32 control patients with uterine prolapse or leiomyoma of uterus). Cox2 and β-catenin expression were determined by immunohistochemistry. The serum levels of cox2 and wnt3a were detected via ELISA assays.
Results: Patients with endometrial cancer showed overexpression of cox2 and β-catenin, as well as significantly higher serum levels of cox2 and wnt3a. The serum cox2 level, which is highly significant in predicting the risk of disease progression (RR, 9.617, 95% confidence interval, 1.162–79.622, P = 0.036), showed good diagnostic and prognostic potential, with cut-off of 55 U/L, but alongside β-catenin expression in tissues, were related to poor prognosis (RR, 12.426; 95% confidence interval, 1.618–95.450; P = 0.015).
Conclusion: Serum levels of cox2 and wnt3a exhibited diagnostic value for endometrial cancer. Cox2 serum levels and β-catenin expression also showed potential value of prognostic prediction. Cox2 serum levels might be a potential marker for early diagnosis and prognosis prediction in endometrial cancer.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.5491/SHAW.2012.3.3.166
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s11010-018-3313-0
- https://doi.org//10.1038/s41598-019-38585-9
- https://doi.org//10.1002/path.4160
- https://doi.org//10.1111/j.1525-1438.2006.00408.x
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00404-017-4386-9
- https://doi.org//10.1038/sj.onc.1205924
- https://doi.org//10.14670/HH-20.753
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ajpath.2014.05.023
- https://doi.org//10.4081/ejh.2014.2262
- https://doi.org//10.1097/PGP.0b013e318290405a
- https://doi.org//10.1155/2018/7968149
- https://doi.org//10.1002/cncr.10736
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s12943-015-0406-1
- https://doi.org//10.1111/rda.12950
- https://doi.org//10.1146/annurev.bi.60.070191.001433
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.cell.2006.10.018
- https://doi.org//10.1038/modpathol.3880196
- https://doi.org//10.1038/modpathol.2013.107
- https://doi.org//10.1210/me.2004-0259
- https://doi.org//10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0814
- https://doi.org//10.1038/emboj.2009.322
- https://doi.org//10.1146/annurev.genet.42.110807.091432
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nrc3447
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.07.130
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80118-6
- https://doi.org//10.3892/etm.2013.913
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00726-017-2411-8
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.actatropica.2018.01.021
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.11.035
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ajog.2007.04.033
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00428-017-2115-1
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ajog.2010.12.007
- https://doi.org//10.3390/jcm8040439
- https://doi.org//10.1080/09513590.2018.1446934
- https://doi.org//10.1038/nrc3419
- https://doi.org//10.1053/j.seminoncol.2016.06.010
- https://doi.org//10.1097/IGC.0000000000000563
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.ceb.2017.12.005
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.08.008
- https://doi.org//10.7150/thno.32097
- https://doi.org//10.1002/path.1402
- https://doi.org//10.1054/bjoc.2000.1581
- https://doi.org//10.1093/carcin/bgy079
- https://doi.org//10.1093/jnci/dju245
- https://doi.org//10.1530/ERC-18-0112
CC BY 4.0