Nomogram for Predicting Lymph Node Metastasis for Patients With T1 Esophageal Carcinoma

CHEST Journal ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 148 (4) ◽  
pp. 39A
Author(s):  
Su Yang
Surgery Today ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 29 (11) ◽  
pp. 1131-1135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daisuke Tachikawa ◽  
Shigemitsu Inada ◽  
Tsuyoshi Kotoh ◽  
Kitaro Futami ◽  
Sumitaka Arima ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10053-10053
Author(s):  
S. Loges ◽  
H. Claussen ◽  
U. Reichelt ◽  
M. Bubenheim ◽  
A. Erbersdobler ◽  
...  

10053 Background: Neoangiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis represent prognostic factors in human malignancies. Determination of microvessel density (MVD) by immunohistology is labor-intensive and subject to interobserver variability. We evaluated real time PCR to quantify MVD in primary tumor samples from patients with esophageal cancer. Methods: We performed real-time PCR analyzes of endothel-specific (VE-Cadherin, P1H12, VEGFR-2, tie-2), lymphendothel-specific (Prox, LYVE, VEGFR-3) antigens and of angiogenic growth factors (VEGF-A, VEGF-C, VEGF-D, Ang-1, Ang-2) in primary esophageal carcinoma tissue of 54 patients. These results were compared to MVD determined immunohistochemically by CD31 staining. Results: For validation, MNC samples spiked with HUVECs were analyzed by qPCR for VE-CAD and P1H12 yielding a linear correlation (r=0.99 and 0.96 respectively). Expression of endothelial markers was highly correlated in tumor samples, e.g. CD144 with CD146 τb=0.451, CD144 with VEGFR-2 τb =0.744 and CD144 with tie-2 τb=0.684 (p for all comparisons < 0.0001). QPCR results were compared to MVD determination by CD31 staining in a subgroup of 33 patients. The highest association between both methods was found for CD144 (τb=0.258, p=0.0379) and VEGFR-2 (τb=0.222, p=0.0745) indicating that immunohistology and qPCR yield comparable results. MVD was significantly linked to the expression of VEGF-A, -C,-D and Ang1 and Ang2 (p for all comparisons <0.0001). We analyzed expression of lymphendothelial cell antigens Prox, LYVE and VEGFR-3 for quantification of lymphatic vessels. A close association between the expression of different lymphendothelial factors was seen (LYVE with Prox τb=0.334, p=0.0021, LYVE with VEGFR-3 τb=0.450, p=0.0150). MVD and lymphvessel density was not linked. Lymph node metastases detected on surgical specimen were associated with MVD determined immunohistologically (p=0.003)or by qPCR (p=0.048) and to VEGF-C expression (p=0.04). Conclusions: QPCR analysis of CD144 and VEGFR2 represents a novel tool for quantification of MVD in tumor samples. Expression of VEGFR2 and VEGF-C is associated with lymph node metastasis in patients with esophageal carcinoma. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


1997 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ikuo Kawahara ◽  
Kiminori Fujimoto ◽  
Jun Uozumi ◽  
Osamu Edamitsu ◽  
Masafumi Uchida ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jinxin Yang ◽  
Zhouyi Lu ◽  
An Wang ◽  
Yulong Tan ◽  
Dekang Zhang

Abstract Background:The development of tumor cells inside the lymphatics or blood vessels is known as lymphovascular invasion (LVI). The correlation between LVI, lymph node metastasis (LNM), and the diagnosis of superficial esophageal carcinoma (SEC) remains unclear.Methods:We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for prospective articles to better understand the relationship between LVI, LNM, and SEC diagnosis.Results:We included 28 articles containing data for 5041 patients (range: 29-498) in our meta-analysis. The hazard ratio between LVI and overall survival (OS) was 1.62 with 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.17-2.26; p = 0.004) and the odds ratio between LVI and LNM was 5.7 with 95% CI (4.43-7.33; p < 0.0001). LVI in patients diagnosed with SEC results in a poor OS rate and a higher rate of LNM.Conclusions:The results indicate that LVI plays a dominant role in the prognosis of LNM in SEC and in the prognostic prediction for SEC.Keywords: Lymphovascular invasion; lymph node metastasis; prognosis; superficial esophageal carcinoma


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document