Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 (ALDH1) is expressed in stem ⁄ progenitor cells, including cancer-initiating cells (CIC) of various organs. In the present study, ALDH1 expression was immunohistochemically examined in uterine endometrioid adenocarcinoma. The ALDH1 was expressed in a small portion of tumor cells, and these ALDH1-expressing cells were less mature than ALDH1-non-expressing cells. The ALDH1-expressing (ALDH1-hi) cells were more tumorigenic, resistant to anti-cancer agents and more invasive than ALDH1-lo cells. Culture of the sorted ALDH1-hi cells yielded both ALDH1-hi and ALDH1-lo cells, whereas ALDH1-lo cells yielded ALDH-lo cells alone. Clinically, a high-level of ALDH1 expression in tumor cells was correlated with T category, lymphatic invasion, recurrence and prognosis of patients. Patients with high ALDH1 expression showed poorer prognoses than those with low expression (P = 0.015 for disease-free survival [DFS] and P = 0.010 for overall survival [OS]), and high ALDH1 expression was an independent factor for poor prognosis. Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 is a candidate for CIC marker for uterine endometrioid adenocarcinoma. (Cancer Sci 2011; 102: 903-908)

There is a role for podoplanin in tumorigenesis and malignant progression in ESCC.

Background Intestinal tuberculosis still has a high incidence, especially in developing countries. The biggest challenge of this disease is the establishment of the diagnosis because the clinical features are not typical. Investigations such as culture, acid-fast bacilli (AFB) staining, and histopathology have low sensitivity, so other investigations are needed. Latest molecular-based diagnostic modalities such as GeneXpert, interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) release assays (IGRA), polymerase chain reaction (PCR), multiplex-PCR, and immunological markers are expected to help diagnose intestinal tuberculosis. This article review will examine the latest diagnostic modalities that can be used as a tool in establishing the diagnosis of intestinal tuberculosis. Results Through a literature search, we were able to review the diagnostic values of various available diagnostic modalities as the appropriate additional test in intestinal tuberculosis. Culture as a gold standard has a sensitivity and specificity value of 9.3% and 100% with the MGIT BACTEC system as the most recommended medium. The sensitivity values of AFB staining, histopathology examination, GeneXpert, IGRA, PCR, multiplex-PCR and, immunological markers were ranged between 17.3 and 31%; 68%; 81–95.7%; 74–88%; 21.6–65%; 75.7–93.1%; and 52–87%, respectively. Meanwhile the specificity values were 100%; 77.1%; 91–100%; 74–87%; 93–100%; 96.4–100%; and 70–95%, respectively. Conclusion The combination of clinical examination, conventional examination, and the latest molecular-based examination is the best choice for establishing the diagnosis of intestinal tuberculosis. Most recent modalities such as multiplex PCR and immunological marker examinations are diagnostic tools that deserve to be used in diagnosing intestinal tuberculosis as their sensitivity and specificity values are quite high and more evidences are expected to support the application of these examinations shortly soon.

No abstract