Automated and quantitative immunocytochemical assays of CD44v6 in breast carcinomas

Charpin, Colette; García, Stéphane; Bouvier, Corinne; Devictor, B; Andrac, L; Choux, R; Lavaut, Marie‐Noëlle; Allasia, Claude

doi:10.1016/s0046-8177(97)90126-x

Cited by 38 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The appropriate threshold of prognostic significance for a given marker was determined as previously recommended 33 and described. 22,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Logistic regression (with ROC curves) was then used to identify the combination of markers with the best sensitivity and specificity indicative of a proteomic signature of poor prognosis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The selection of markers was based on a literature review covering principal markers involved in tumor growth and progression, and on our previous experience in their immunocytochemical expression in tissue sections from frozen or fixed tissues and TMAs. [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Recent studies have underlined the role of cMet in tumor spreading (see review 22 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From the images acquired with 203 magnification, a new set of images was next computed, one for each core. For color analysis of the core images, the SAMBA ''immuno'' software was applied as previously reported [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] in usual full tissue sections.…”

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In positive (>0) cases, optimal thresholds greater than zero, specific for each marker, were determined according to the p value curves from univariate analysis (log rank), as reported by Altman et al 33 and previously used, 22,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] as shown in Figure 2 and Table III. Table III shows that 27 of the 42 prognostic markers were significant in the univariate analysis and Figure 3 illustrates an unsupervised hierarchical clustering of prognostic significant markers in the log rank test.…”

Section: Quantitative Score and Survivalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, quantification of immunoprecipitates with automated computer-assisted devices relying on densitometry allows more objective analysis of results. [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] Also, quantitative data are more appropriate for statistical analysis and permit more valid studies, although some variation in interpretation of results can still occur. 32 Our objective in the present study was to determine immunohistochemical criteria for phenotyping of tumors of poor prognosis, and particularly for metastatic risk that would be economically applicable for individual patients with breast carcinoma, using the latest methodology for standardization and quality control.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A signature predictive of disease outcome in breast carcinomas, identified by quantitative immunocytochemical assays

Charpin

Secq

Giusiano

et al. 2009

Intl Journal of Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantitative immunocytochemical assays of 1,200 breast carcinomas were assessed after construction of tissue microarrays. A total of 42 markers were evaluated for prognostic significance by univariate log rank test (mean follow‐up, 79 months), using quantitative scoring by an image analysis device and specific software. Complete data were obtained for 924 patients, for whom 27 of the 42 markers proved to be significant prognostic indicators. Analysis of these 27 markers by logistic regression showed that 18 (cMet, CD44v6, FAK, moesin, caveolin, c‐Kit, CK14, CD10, P21, P27, pMAPK, pSTAT3, STAT1, SHARP2, FYN, ER, PgR and c‐erb B2), and 15 when ER, PgR and c‐erb B2 were excluded, were 80.52% and 78.9% predictive of disease outcome, respectively. The immunocytochemical assays on 4 micron thick sections of fixed tissue are easy to handle in current practice and are cost‐effective. Quantitative densitometric measurement of immunoprecipitates by computer‐assisted devices from digitized microscopic images allows standardized high‐throughput “in situ” molecular profiling within tumors. It is concluded that this 15 marker immunohistochemical signature is suitable for current practice, since performed on paraffin sections of fixed tumor samples, and can be used to select patients needing more aggressive therapy, since this signature is about 80% predictive of poor clinical outcome. Also, the markers included in the signature may be indicative of tumor responsiveness to current chemotherapy or suggest new targets for specific therapies. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Quantitative Score and Survivalmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A signature predictive of disease outcome in breast carcinomas, identified by quantitative immunocytochemical assays

Charpin

Secq

Giusiano

et al. 2009

Intl Journal of Cancer

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Expression of CD44 standard and variant-v6 proteins in transitional cell bladder tumours and their relation to prognosis during a long-term follow-up

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expression of CD44 splice variant v10 in Hodgkin's disease is associated with aggressive behaviour and high risk of relapse

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expression of CD44 isoforms has been shown to correlate with the progression and prognosis of some malignant tumours. The aim of this study was to investigate the expression of CD44 standard (CD44s) and CD44 splice variants (CD44v) v5, v6, and v10 in lymph node specimens from patients with nodular sclerosing Hodgkin's disease (NSHD), with or without initial bone marrow involvement and with or without relapse. Specimens were studied by immunohistochemistry to determine CD44s and CD44v in Hodgkin‐ and Reed–Sternberg (HRS) cells. For validation of the immunohistochemical detection of CD44v10 in paraffin‐embedded samples, selected cases were analysed in parallel immunohistochemically using fresh frozen material and by reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR). There was high expression of CD44 isoforms containing the variant exon v10 selectively in HRS cells of patients with relapse within 2–3 years or with initial bone marrow involvement. In patients without relapse, however, no or only very few HRS cells were positive. These differences were statistically highly significant (p≤ 0001), whereas evaluation of CD44s, CD44v5, and v6 expression revealed no marked differences. It is concluded that evaluation of CD44v10 expression could serve as a new prognostic marker in NSHD. These results are considered to be of sufficient importance to initiate a large multi‐institutional study for confirmation; furthermore, they might suggest causal involvement of CD44v10 in the progression of NSHD. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Automated and quantitative immunocytochemical assays of CD44v6 in breast carcinomas

Cited by 38 publications

References 23 publications

A signature predictive of disease outcome in breast carcinomas, identified by quantitative immunocytochemical assays

A signature predictive of disease outcome in breast carcinomas, identified by quantitative immunocytochemical assays

Expression of CD44 standard and variant-v6 proteins in transitional cell bladder tumours and their relation to prognosis during a long-term follow-up

Expression of CD44 splice variant v10 in Hodgkin's disease is associated with aggressive behaviour and high risk of relapse

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About