Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSilva, Priyamal
dc.contributor.authorSlevin, Nicholas J
dc.contributor.authorSloan, Philip
dc.contributor.authorValentine, Helen R
dc.contributor.authorRyder, W David J
dc.contributor.authorPrice, Patricia M
dc.contributor.authorWest, Catharine M L
dc.contributor.authorHomer, Jarrod J
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-14T12:15:51Z
dc.date.available2010-09-14T12:15:51Z
dc.date.issued2010-06
dc.identifier.citationUse of multiple biological markers in radiotherapy-treated head and neck cancer. 2010, 124 (6):650-8 J Laryngol Otolen
dc.identifier.issn1748-5460
dc.identifier.pmid20388242
dc.identifier.doi10.1017/S0022215110000228
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/111126
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: Management of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma is often based on clinical parameters, with little appreciation of the underlying tumour biology. Single biological marker studies fail to acknowledge the complexity of these tumours. Our aim was to define a profile of biological markers associated with outcome. DESIGN: This retrospective study involved consecutive patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated with primary radiotherapy between 1996 and 2001. Pre-treatment biopsies were used to study the immunohistochemical expression of nine biological markers. Markers were chosen to reflect biologically relevant pathways. RESULTS: Following analysis of nine markers, a profile of two markers was derived (carbonic anhydrase 9 and major vault protein), the co-expression of which conferred a significantly poor probability of locoregional control. The prognostic effect of these biomarkers in combination was greater than their effect individually. CONCLUSION: Biomarker profiles can be established which highlight large differences in locoregional control. Identifying tumours that express both carbonic anhydrase 9 and major vault protein may facilitate patient selection for more aggressive treatment.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectCancer Antigensen
dc.subjectCancer Proteinsen
dc.subjectBiological Tumour Markersen
dc.subjectOropharyngeal Canceren
dc.subject.meshAcid Anhydride Hydrolases
dc.subject.meshAdult
dc.subject.meshAged
dc.subject.meshAged, 80 and over
dc.subject.meshAntigens, Neoplasm
dc.subject.meshBiopsy
dc.subject.meshCarbonic Anhydrases
dc.subject.meshCarcinoma, Squamous Cell
dc.subject.meshFemale
dc.subject.meshGlucose Transporter Type 1
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshHypoxia-Inducible Factor 1, alpha Subunit
dc.subject.meshKi-67 Antigen
dc.subject.meshMale
dc.subject.meshMiddle Aged
dc.subject.meshMultivariate Analysis
dc.subject.meshNeoplasm Proteins
dc.subject.meshOropharyngeal Neoplasms
dc.subject.meshPrognosis
dc.subject.meshProto-Oncogene Proteins c-akt
dc.subject.meshProto-Oncogene Proteins c-bcl-2
dc.subject.meshReceptor, Epidermal Growth Factor
dc.subject.meshRetrospective Studies
dc.subject.meshTumor Markers, Biological
dc.subject.meshVault Ribonucleoprotein Particles
dc.titleUse of multiple biological markers in radiotherapy-treated head and neck cancer.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentSchool of Cancer & Enabling Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.en
dc.identifier.journalThe Journal of Laryngology and Otologyen
html.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: Management of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma is often based on clinical parameters, with little appreciation of the underlying tumour biology. Single biological marker studies fail to acknowledge the complexity of these tumours. Our aim was to define a profile of biological markers associated with outcome. DESIGN: This retrospective study involved consecutive patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated with primary radiotherapy between 1996 and 2001. Pre-treatment biopsies were used to study the immunohistochemical expression of nine biological markers. Markers were chosen to reflect biologically relevant pathways. RESULTS: Following analysis of nine markers, a profile of two markers was derived (carbonic anhydrase 9 and major vault protein), the co-expression of which conferred a significantly poor probability of locoregional control. The prognostic effect of these biomarkers in combination was greater than their effect individually. CONCLUSION: Biomarker profiles can be established which highlight large differences in locoregional control. Identifying tumours that express both carbonic anhydrase 9 and major vault protein may facilitate patient selection for more aggressive treatment.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record