RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 p53 and RB expression predict progression in T1 bladder cancer.
JF Clinical Cancer Research
JO Clin Cancer Res
FD American Association for Cancer Research
SP 829
OP 834
VO 4
IS 4
A1 Grossman, H B
A1 Liebert, M
A1 Antelo, M
A1 Dinney, C P
A1 Hu, S X
A1 Palmer, J L
A1 Benedict, W F
YR 1998
UL http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/4/4/829.abstract
AB The optimal clinical management of minimally invasive (stage T1) bladder cancer is controversial. T1 bladder cancers share characteristics of both noninvasive (Ta) papillary cancer and high stage, muscle-invasive bladder cancers. Patients with T1 bladder cancer have a higher risk of cancer progression and death than do patients with Ta bladder cancer. However, this risk is much lower than that of patients with high-stage bladder cancers. Methods of identifying T1 bladder cancer patients at greatest risk for progression may significantly improve clinical management. We retrospectively evaluated two tumor suppressor genes, p53 and RB, as potential prognostic markers for progression in a cohort of 45 patients with pT1 bladder cancer. Median follow-up for these individuals was greater than 3.5 years. Of this group, 58% had altered p53 expression based on positive p53 immunostaining. Three patterns for RB nuclear protein staining were observed: absent, heterogeneous (normal), and strongly homogeneous. Progression-free survival was similar for patients with loss of RB protein expression and those with apparent overexpression of RB protein. Therefore, both staining patterns were considered abnormal. Patients with normal expression of both proteins (i.e., p53 negative and RB heterogeneously positive) had an excellent outcome, with no patient showing disease progression, whereas patients with abnormal expression of either or both proteins had a significant increase in progression (P = 0.04 and P = 0.005, respectively). These data support the stratification of T1 bladder cancer patients based on p53 and RB nuclear protein status and suggest that patients with normal protein expression for both genes can be managed conservatively, whereas patients with alterations in one and particularly both genes require more aggressive treatment.