Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: II. Cervical and Endometrial Cancer

In gynecologic oncology valid prognostic factors are necessary to define biologically similar subgroups for analysis of therapeutic efficacy. This study is the first published prospective study concerning prognostic significance of DNA ploidy and S‐phase fraction in cervical and endometrial cancer f...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Pauline Wimberger, Peter Hillemanns, Thomas Kapsner, Hermann Hepp, Rainer Kimmig
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Hindawi Limited 2002-01-01
Series:Analytical Cellular Pathology
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2002/346969
id doaj-67e935d03fb34d9399b833259a802ec6
record_format Article
spelling doaj-67e935d03fb34d9399b833259a802ec62020-11-24T23:15:29ZengHindawi LimitedAnalytical Cellular Pathology0921-89121878-36512002-01-01244-514715810.1155/2002/346969Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: II. Cervical and Endometrial 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 define biologically similar subgroups for analysis of therapeutic efficacy. This study is the first published prospective study concerning prognostic significance of DNA ploidy and S‐phase fraction in cervical and endometrial 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 91 specimens of cervical cancer and 73 samples of endometrial cancer. In cervical cancer neither DNA‐ploidy nor S‐phase fraction were relevant prognostic parameters. But CV of the G0G1‐peak showed prognostic relevance in cervical cancer cells, even in multivariate analysis. This interesting observation, however, seems to have no therapeutic consequence due to the small discrimination capacity of CV. In endometrial carcinoma, gross DNA‐aneuploidy (DNA‐index > 1.3) and a high percentage of proliferating cells (>75th percentile) were univariate and multivariate highly significant prognostic factors for recurrence‐free survival. Especially DNA‐aneuploidy (DI>1.3) is one of the most important independent molecular biological prognostic factors. While diagnostic curettage we could identify risk patients even preoperatively by determination of the prognostic factors like histologic tumor type, grading, cervical involvement and DNA‐ploidy. Thereby these patients could be treated primarily in an oncologic center. In conclusion, our investigations showed that the determination of DNA‐ploidy should be done in endometrial carcinoma. In cervical cancer no clinical significance for determination of DNA‐parameters was found.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2002/346969
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Pauline Wimberger
Peter Hillemanns
Thomas Kapsner
Hermann Hepp
Rainer Kimmig
spellingShingle Pauline Wimberger
Peter Hillemanns
Thomas Kapsner
Hermann Hepp
Rainer Kimmig
Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: II. Cervical and Endometrial Cancer
Analytical Cellular Pathology
author_facet Pauline Wimberger
Peter Hillemanns
Thomas Kapsner
Hermann Hepp
Rainer Kimmig
author_sort Pauline Wimberger
title Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: II. Cervical and Endometrial Cancer
title_short Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: II. Cervical and Endometrial Cancer
title_full Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: II. Cervical and Endometrial Cancer
title_fullStr Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: II. Cervical and Endometrial Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: II. Cervical and Endometrial Cancer
title_sort evaluation of prognostic factors following flow-cytometric dna analysis after cytokeratin labelling: ii. cervical and endometrial cancer
publisher Hindawi Limited
series Analytical Cellular Pathology
issn 0921-8912
1878-3651
publishDate 2002-01-01
description In gynecologic oncology valid prognostic factors are necessary to define biologically similar subgroups for analysis of therapeutic efficacy. This study is the first published prospective study concerning prognostic significance of DNA ploidy and S‐phase fraction in cervical and endometrial 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 91 specimens of cervical cancer and 73 samples of endometrial cancer. In cervical cancer neither DNA‐ploidy nor S‐phase fraction were relevant prognostic parameters. But CV of the G0G1‐peak showed prognostic relevance in cervical cancer cells, even in multivariate analysis. This interesting observation, however, seems to have no therapeutic consequence due to the small discrimination capacity of CV. In endometrial carcinoma, gross DNA‐aneuploidy (DNA‐index > 1.3) and a high percentage of proliferating cells (>75th percentile) were univariate and multivariate highly significant prognostic factors for recurrence‐free survival. Especially DNA‐aneuploidy (DI>1.3) is one of the most important independent molecular biological prognostic factors. While diagnostic curettage we could identify risk patients even preoperatively by determination of the prognostic factors like histologic tumor type, grading, cervical involvement and DNA‐ploidy. Thereby these patients could be treated primarily in an oncologic center. In conclusion, our investigations showed that the determination of DNA‐ploidy should be done in endometrial carcinoma. In cervical cancer no clinical significance for determination of DNA‐parameters was found.
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2002/346969
work_keys_str_mv AT paulinewimberger evaluationofprognosticfactorsfollowingflowcytometricdnaanalysisaftercytokeratinlabellingiicervicalandendometrialcancer
AT peterhillemanns evaluationofprognosticfactorsfollowingflowcytometricdnaanalysisaftercytokeratinlabellingiicervicalandendometrialcancer
AT thomaskapsner evaluationofprognosticfactorsfollowingflowcytometricdnaanalysisaftercytokeratinlabellingiicervicalandendometrialcancer
AT hermannhepp evaluationofprognosticfactorsfollowingflowcytometricdnaanalysisaftercytokeratinlabellingiicervicalandendometrialcancer
AT rainerkimmig evaluationofprognosticfactorsfollowingflowcytometricdnaanalysisaftercytokeratinlabellingiicervicalandendometrialcancer
_version_ 1725590814987386880