Immunohistochemical expression of galectin-3 is significantly associated with grade, stage and differentiation of endometrial carcinomas

, , , , ,

Pathology Research and Practice, 213(4), 348-352. Urban & Fischer (2017) .

Urban & Fischer

Abstract

This study describes galectin-3 immunohistochemical phenotype and its association with clinicopathological factors in the carcinoma of endometrium. Seventy one cases of endometrial carcinoma and 30 cases of benign and normal endometrium were employed for the detection of galectin-3 protein using tissue microarrays and immunohistochemistry staining. Thirty nine (55%) cases, including 54.2% of endometrioid adenocarcinomas and 55.5% serous carcinomas, were positively stained for galectin-3. Brown granular expression of this glycoprotein was detected in transformed epithelial cells of 36 cases including 28 cases with membranous and cytoplasmic staining and 8 cases with only cytoplasmic staining; nuclear expression was present in stromal cells of the remaining 3 cases. Twenty-four (80%) control cases showed granular cytoplasmic and membranous expression, and six control cases were negative. Tumor grade, stage and differentiation were significantly associated with galectin-3 immunoreactivity (p-values are 0.043, 0.016, and 0.044 respectively), cases with membranous and cytoplasmic staining is significantly associated with grade I and stage II, while cases with loss of staining are more frequent in grade II, III and poorly differentiated tumors. No significant association of galectin-3 staining was observed with age, diagnosis, recurrence and alive status. The current study supports the tumor suppression role of galectin-3 in endometrial carcinoma. Greater galectin-3 immunostaining has been found in control endometrial tissues compared to endometrial tumors. Loss or decreased galectin-3 immunoexpression gives a sign for poor prognoses in endometrial carcinoma patients.



Add your rating and review

If all scientific publications that you have read were ranked according to their scientific quality and importance from 0% (worst) to 100% (best), where would you place this publication? Please rate by selecting a range.


0% - 100%

This publication ranks between % and % of publications that I have read in terms of scientific quality and importance.


Keep my rating and review anonymous
Show publicly that I gave the rating and I wrote the review