scholarly journals DNA ploidy and S-phase fraction as prognostic factors in patients with uveal melanomas

1995 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Karlsson ◽  
B Boeryd ◽  
J Carstensen ◽  
B Kågedal ◽  
S Wingren
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Dna Ploidy ◽  
S Phase ◽  
Phase Fraction ◽  
Uveal Melanomas

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

2002 ◽  
Vol 24 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 147-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauline Wimberger ◽  
Peter Hillemanns ◽  
Thomas Kapsner ◽  
Hermann Hepp ◽  
Rainer Kimmig
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Endometrial Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Endometrial Carcinoma ◽  
Dna Ploidy ◽  
S Phase ◽  
Phase Fraction ◽  
Dna Aneuploidy ◽  
Flow Cytometric

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.

DNA ploidy status, S-phase fraction, and p53 are not independent prognostic factors for survival in endometrioid endometrial carcinoma FIGO stage I–III

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-311
Author(s):  
Teresia Svanvik ◽  
Ulf Strömberg ◽  
Erik Holmberg ◽  
Janusz Marcickiewicz ◽  
Karin Sundfeldt
Keyword(s):  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Endometrial Carcinoma ◽  
Dna Ploidy ◽  
Relative Survival ◽  
Figo Stage ◽  
S Phase ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Phase Fraction ◽  
P53 Overexpression ◽  
Endometrioid Endometrial Carcinoma

ObjectivesTo assess the effects on relative survival of established and new prognostic factors in stage I–III grade 1–3 endometrioid endometrial carcinoma and in the subgroup of stage I grade 1–2.MethodsThis was a population-based, retrospective study including all women (n=1113) in the western Swedish healthcare region diagnosed with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage I–III grade 1–3 endometrioid endometrial carcinoma in 2006–2011. Histology, grade, stage, and age were prospectively reported to the regional clinical and national cancer registers. DNA ploidy and S-phase fraction were analyzed by flow cytometer. S-phase fraction cut-off was set at ≥8%. Tumor biopsies were classified as diploid if there was one G0/G1 peak or the DNA index was 1.0±0.04. Overexpression of p53 as determined by immunohistochemistry was positive if strong nuclear staining was found in >30% of the neoplastic cells.ResultsBased on univariable statistical analyses we found that 5-year relative survival was significantly associated with S-phase fraction, DNA ploidy, p53, stage, grade, and age. Excess mortality for S-phase fraction ≥8%, aneuploidy, and p53 overexpression was 8, 14, and 8 and times higher, respectively. However, in a multivariable regression model, adjusted for stage, grade, and age, S-phase fraction, DNA ploidy, and p53 were not statistically independent prognostic factors (p=0.413, p=0.107, p=0.208, respectively) for 5-year relative survival in stage I–III grade 1–3 endometrioid endometrial carcinoma. In a subgroup analysis of stage I grade 1–2, aneuploidy identified a subgroup with impaired 5-year relative survival.ConclusionWe can conclude that S-phase fraction, DNA ploidy, and p53 overexpression did not improve identification of high-risk patients by stage, grade, and age in stage I–III endometrioid endometrial carcinoma. In stage I, aneuploidy and grade 2 predicted lower relative survival rates than other variables.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Prognostic Factors Following Flow-Cytometric DNA Analysis after Cytokeratin Labelling: I. Breast Cancer

2002 ◽  
Vol 24 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 135-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauline Wimberger ◽  
Peter Hillemanns ◽  
Thomas Kapsner ◽  
Hermann Hepp ◽  
Rainer Kimmig
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Tumor Cells ◽  
Dna Ploidy ◽  
Gynecologic Oncology ◽  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Prognostic Significance ◽  
S Phase ◽  
Phase Fraction ◽  
Flow Cytometric

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.

DNA ploidy level and S-phase fraction as prognostic factors in breast cancer

1990 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 491-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takao Yokoe ◽  
Masaru Izuo ◽  
Isunehiro Ishida ◽  
Yuichi Iino ◽  
Tadakazu Kawai
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Ploidy Level ◽  
Dna Ploidy ◽  
S Phase ◽  
Phase Fraction

Evaluation of DNA ploidy and S‐phase fraction in fine needle aspirates from breast carcinoma

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shalini Panwar ◽  
Uma Handa ◽  
Manveen Kaur ◽  
Harsh Mohan ◽  
Ashok K Attri
Keyword(s):  
Breast Carcinoma ◽  
Dna Ploidy ◽  
S Phase ◽  
Phase Fraction ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Fine Needle Aspirates

scholarly journals Lack of prognostic significance of DNA ploidy and S phase fraction in breast cancer

1992 ◽  
Vol 66 (5) ◽  
pp. 925-929 ◽  
Author(s):  
PD Stanton ◽  
TG Cooke ◽  
SJ Oakes ◽  
J Winstanley ◽  
S Holt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Dna Ploidy ◽  
Prognostic Significance ◽  
S Phase ◽  
Phase Fraction
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document