No abstract

Resistance to cisplatin is a major impediment to the successful treatment of ovarian cancer, but the precise nature of the resistance is still unclear. In the current study, we aimed to investigate and compare the protein expression profiles in cisplatin-sensitive and cisplatin-resistant ovarian cancer cell lines. We employed the recent development of surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization ProteinChip technology to measure protein expression in three human ovarian cancer cell lines (KF-1, MN-1, and A2780) and their sublines (KF-r, MN-r, and A2780cp) resistant to cisplatin. The ProteinChip Arrays were analyzed using the ProteinChip Reader. We did not find any regularity in protein expressions in secretions of cisplatin-sensitive and cisplatin-resistant cells. But on the IMAC3 array, we captured 12 identical expressions which represent a subset of proteins whose expression levels are different between parent ovarian cancer cells and their cisplatin-resistant cells. In particular, at the molecular weight of 7829 d, three kinds of parent cell lines exhibited an elevated expression and their cisplatin-resistant sublines revealed a lowered expression. At the molecular weight of 6881 d, for KF and MN cell lines, opposite protein expressions were seen in the parent cell line and its cisplatin-resistant subline. We think the interesting protein expressions perhaps suggest some mechanisms involved in cisplatin resistance.

During the 4-year routing study of smears in 2,919 pregnant women, 33 cases of abnormalities of the uterine cervix were detected (1.13%). The patients were followed with uterine cervical cytology and colposcopy, and in case of need, sometimes punch biopsies were performed. As a result of the cytologies, 33 cases with abnormalities were detected. There were 26 cases classified as class IIIa and 7 cases were class IIIb. All cases underwent colposcopy. For the 17 cases that showed lesions by colposcopy, punch biopsies were performed. The results of histologic examination were wide: 5 chronic cervicitis, 1 condyloma, 1 mild dysplasia, 3 moderate dysplasia, 3 severe dysplasia, 3 carcinoma in situ, and 1 microinvasive carcinoma. Only two cases were treated during pregnancy, condyloma underwent Laser vaporization and microinvasive carcinoma underwent Loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) conization. Other cases were conservative treatment during pregnancy. Excluding one case for persistence smear class IIIa of histology condyloma, all the other cases with regression of dysplasia and carcinoma in situ with treatment after delivery. We conclude that lesions up to carcinoma in situ do not require intervention during pregnancy but microinvasive carcinoma is suspected, diagnostic LEEP conization is necessary, even during pregnancy.

No abstract

No abstract