Expression of Cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 as a Prognostic Factor in Nasopharyngeal Cancer

Abstract

P urpose: To evaluate the relationship between treatment failure and C O X -2 expression in nasopharyngeal cancer patients treated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy.M aterials and M ethods: The subjects of this study were 22 nasopharyngeal cancer patients. The patients were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by radiotherapy, or with radiotherapy alone. The formalinfixed, paraffin-embedded tissues of 11 patients who developed a locoregional recurrence (n=7) or distant metastasis (n=4) were compared with those of 11 disease free patients. P rognostic factors, including histological type, stage, radiation dose and chemotherapy, were well balanced between the two groups. The C O X-2 expression was determined immunohistochemically.R esults: C O X -2 expression was stronger in the patients with a locoregional recurrence or distant metastasis than in those free of disease. The C O X -2 distribution scores of the control group were as follows: 0 in 7, 1 in 2 and 2 in 2 patients. In the recurrence group, the scores were as follows; 0 in 3, 1 in 1, 2 in 2 and 3 in 5 patients. COX-2 expression was shown to have a statistically significant influence on the treatment failure by the M ann-W hitney U test (p=0.024) and M antel-H aenszel C hi-S quare test (p=0.018). It also significantly influenced the treatment failure when an analysis was performed within patients with a undifferentiated histology

Immunohistochemical study identifying prognostic biomolecular markers in nasopharyngeal carcinoma treated by radiotherapy

“…The prostaglandin H synthase 2, which is COX‐2, is up‐regulated in various malignancies, such as colon, lung, breast cancer, and HNSCC. Although COX‐2 overexpression appeared to predict a shorter survival in other studies,12, 22 we failed to show this tendency in the present study.…”

“…counted the extent of the expression of each markers on a ×200 field. The cutoff level was based on the previous studies 5, 11–22. For EGFR we evaluated the degree of the intensity as well as the extent and for cathepsin‐D, the sum degree of intensity and extent in accord with the previous study.…”