I TUOI DATI
I TUOI ORDINI
N. prodotti: 0
Totale ordine: € 0,00
I TUOI ABBONAMENTI
I TUOI ARTICOLI
JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGICAL SCIENCES
Rivista di Neurochirurgia
Indexed/Abstracted in: e-psyche, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Neuroscience Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,651
Journal of Neurosurgical Sciences 2000 December;44(4):203-10
Value of MIB-1 labelling index (LI) in gliomas and its correlation with other prognostic factors. A clinicopathologic study
Rodriguez-Pereira C. 1, Suarez-Penaranda J. M. 2, Vazquez-Salvado M. 5, Sobrido M. J. 3, Abraldes M. 2, Barros F. 4, Forteza J. 2
1 Department of Pathology, Hospital General de Castellón, Castellón, Spain;
2 Department of Pathology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, Spain;
3 Department of Neurology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, Spain;
4 Department of Molecular Medicine, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Santiago, Santiago de Compostela, Spain;
5 Department of Preventive Medicine, Hospital General del Insalud, Soria, Spain
Background. In recent years, the monoclonal antibody MIB-1 has become the main factor to measure the proliferative potential of glial tumors. This antibody is equivalent to Ki-67, which is used in frozen sections, and reacts with a nuclear protein that is expressed through the cell cycle. We have investigated the value of MIB-1 Labelling Index (LI) as an independent prognostic factor in gliomas and its relationship with clinical and pathological parameters.
Methods. MIB-1 LI was determined in 139 gliomas by using the Streptavidin-Biotin Complex (SBC) immunohistochemical method. MIB-1 LI immunoreactivity was measured with an automatic cell counting system. Survival was studied by using the Kaplan-Meier bivariant analysis and Cox multivariant regression.
Results In bivariant analysis MIB-1 LI increased with age, histological grade and a supratentorial lateral location. Only size and tumor grade were significant in Cox regression.
Conclusions. Perhaps this proliferation marker is influenced by many factors which reduce its value as an isolated prognostic parameter.