Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

Mesane Değişici Epitel Hücreli Tümörlerinde AgNOR Skorunun WHO 1973, WHO/ ISUP 1998 ve WHO 1999 Sistemleri İle İlişkisi

Journal Name:

  • Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2002

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
Purpose: In this study we evaluated the relationship between the WHO 1973, WHO/ISUP 1998, WHO 1999 systems which have been using for grading bladder tumors and AgNOR scores. Methods: The study was consisted of 40 patients. Hematoxylin&eosin stained slides were re-evaluated by one of the researcher's according to those three systems. A paraffin bloc was choosen from each case for the eval¬uation of proliferative activity and was stained with the AgNOR method. Results: Mean AgNOR scores were 5.50, 9.21 and 10.29 respectively for grade 1,2 and 3 carcinomas according to the WHO 1973 system. The difference between the AgNOR scores of grade 1 and 2 , grade 1 and 3 tumors were statistically significant (p<0.001). Mean AgNOR scores were 4.90, 5.97 and 9.61 respectively for papillary urethelial neoplasm of low malignant potantial, low and high grade carcinomas for the WHO/ISUP 1998 sys¬tem. The difference between mean AgNOR scores of low and high grade carcinomas were statistically signif¬icant (p<0.05). Mean AgNOR scores were 4.90, 5.97, 9.17 and 10.36 respectively for papillary urethelial neo¬plasm of low malignant potantial ,WHO grade I, II and III carcinomas acoording to the WHO 1999 system. For this system the difference between AgNOR scores of urethelial neoplasm of low malignant potantial and WHO grade I, WHO grade II and III carcinomas weren't statistically significant (p>0.05). But the mean AgNOR values of WHO grade I and II ,WHO grade I and III carcinomas were statistically significant (p<0.05). Conclusion: In bladder tumors increase in mean AgNOR value is corralated with the increasing grade. But it can't differentiate some grades definitely.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Amaç: Bu çalışmada mesane tümörlerini grade'lemede kullanılan WHO 1973, WHO/ISUP 1998,WHO 1999 sistemleri ve AgNOR skorları arasındaki ilişki araştırılmıştır. Yöntem: Çalışma grubunu 40 hasta oluşturmuştur. Bu üç sisteme göre arşivden çıkarılan hematoksilen&eozin boyalı preparatlar aştırmacılardan biri tarafından tekrar değerlendirilmiş, her vakadan seçilen bir blok prolif-eratif aktivite değerlendirmek için AgNOR yöntemi ile boyanmıştır. Sonuçlar: WHO 1973 sistemine göre karsinomların AgNOR ortalaması grade 1,2,3 için 5.5, 9.21, 10.29'dur. Grade 1 ve 2 ile grade 1 ve 3 tümörlerin AgNOR ortalamaları arasındaki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır (p<0.001). WHO/ISUP 1998 sistemine göre düşük malign potansiyelli papiller üretelial neoplazımların AgNOR ortalaması 4.90, düşük grade'li karsinomların 5.97, yüksek grade'li karsinomların 9.61'dir. Yüksek ve düşük grade'li karsinomların AgNOR ortalamaları arasındaki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır (p<0.05). WHO 1999 sistemine göre sırasıyla düşük malign potansiyelli papiller üretelial neoplazımların AgNOR orta¬laması 4.90, grade I karsinomların 5.97, grade II karsinomların 9.17, WHO grade III karsinomların ise 10.36'dır. Bu sisteme göre düşük malign potansiyelli papiller üretelial neoplazım ve grade I karsinom ile , WHO grade II ve m karsinomların AgNOR ortalamaları arasında istatistiksel fark bulunmamıştır (p>005). Fakat WHO grade I ve II, WHO grade I ve III karsinomların AgNOR ortalamaları istatistiksel olarak farklıdır (p<0.05). YORUM: AgNOR ortalaması mesane tümörlerinde artan grade ile korele olarak artmıştır. Fakat bazı grade'-leri birbirinden kesin olarak ayıramamaktadır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon isup-1998-who-1999-sistemleri-ile-iliskisi.pdf
  • 3
1-6
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Pich A, Chiusa L, Comino A, Navone R. Cell proliferation indices, morphometry and DNA flow cytometry provide objective criteria for distinguish¬ing low and high grade bladder carcinomas. Virchows Arch 1994; 424,143-148.
2. Holmang S, Hedelin H, Anderström C, et al. Recurrence and progression in low grade papillary urothelial tumors. J Urol 1999; 162,702-707.
3. Bostwick DG, Mikuz G. Urothelial papillary (exophytic) neoplasms.Virchows Arch 2002; 441,109¬116.
4. Cheng L, Bostwick DG. World Health Organizaton and International Society of Urological Pathology classification and two-number grading system of
bladder tumors. Cancer 2000; 88,1513-1516.
5. Holmang S, Andius P, Hedelin H, et al. Stage pro¬gression in TA papillary urothelial tumors: relation¬ship to grade, immunhistochemical expression of tumor markers, mitotic frequency and DNA ploidy. J
Urol 2001; 165,1124-1130.
6. Hansen AB, Bjerregaard B, Ovesen H, Horn T. AgNOR counts and histological grade in stage pTa bladder tumours: reproducibility and relation to recur¬rence pattern. Histopathology 1992; 20,257-262.
7. Sorensen FB, Sasaki M, Fukuzawa S, et al. Qualitative and quantitative histopathology in transi¬tional cell carcinomas of the urinary bladder. An international investigation of intra- and interobserver reproducibility. Lab Invest 1994; 70,242-254.
8. Shiina H, Urakami S, Shirkawa H, et al. Evaluation of the argyrophilic nucleolar organizer region, nuclear DNA content and mean nuclear area in transitional cell carcinoma of bladder using a quantitative image
analyzer. Eur Urol 1996;29,99-105.
9. Wu TT, Chen JH, Lee YH, Hang JK. The role of
bcl-2, p53, and Ki-67 index in predicting tumor recur¬rence for low grade superficial transitional cell blad¬der carcinoma. J Urol 2000; 163,758-760.
5
Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 2002:9-( 3 ) / 1 -6
6
Kapucuoğlu, Mesane değişici epitel hücreli tümörleri
10.
Koyuncuoğl
u M, Kargı A, Cingöz S, Kırkalı Z. Investigation of p53, c-erbB-2, PCNA immunoreac-tivity, DNA content, AgNOR and apoptosis in bladder carcinoma as prognostic parameters. Cancer Letters
1998; 126,143-148.
11. Busch
C
, Algaba F. The WHO/ISUP 1998 and WHO 1999 systems for malignancy grading of blad¬der cancer. Scientific foundation and translation to one another and previous systems. Virchows Arch
2002; 441,105-108.
12. Epstein JI, Amin M, Reuter VR, et al. The World
Health Organizaton /International Society of Urological Pathology consensus classification of ure-thelial (transitional cell) neoplasms of the urinary
bladder. Am J Surg Pathol 1998; 22,1435-1448.
13. Derenzini M, Trere D. Importance of interphase nucleolar organizer regions in tumor pathology.
Virchows Arch B Cell Pathol 1991; 61,1-8.
14. Helpap B, Loesevitz L, Bultako A. Nucleolar and argyrophilic nucleolar organizer region counts in urothelial carcinomas with special emphasis on grade
II tumors. Virchows Arch 1994; 425,265-269.
15. Tomobe M, Shimazui T, Uchida K, et al. Argyrophilic nucleolar organizer region in proliferat¬ing cell has a predictive value for local recurrence in superficial bladder tumor. J Urol 1999;162,63-68.
16. Karakök M, Aydin A, Bakir, et al. AgNOR/P53
expression compared with different grades in bladder carcinoma. Int Urol Nephrol 2001; 33,353-355.
17. Mostofi FK, Sobin LH, Torlin H. Histological typ¬ing of urinary bladder tumors. No 10. Geniva: World Health Organization, 1973.
18. Hermenek P, Sobin (eds). UICC-Internatıonal Union Against Cancer TNM classification of malig¬nant tumors. Heidelberg, Springer Verlag, 1987, ed 4
p135.
19. Derenzini M, Ploton D. Interphase nucleolar organizer regions in Crocker J (eds): Molecular biol¬ogy in histopathology, vol 7. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, 1994, ed 1 p121-149.
20. Shimazui T, Uchiyama Y, Uchida K, et al. . Evaluation of nucleolar organizer regions in human bladder cancers by light-and electron-microscopic morphometry. Eur Urol 1998; 34,441-447.
21.
Özerca
n İH, Bozlak N, Çobanoğlu B. Mesane karsinomlarının histolojik derecelendirilmesinde PCNA ve AgNOR'un değeri.Turkish Jornal
Neoplasia 2001; 9,1-4.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com