A comparison of epithelial membrane antigen overexpression in benign malignant endometrium

Pluvio J. Coronado, Maria Fasero, Jose A. Vidart, Javier Puerta, Javier Magrina, Vicente Furio-Bacete, Manuel Escudero

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective. The aim of this study was to analyze the value of epithelial membrane antigen (EMA) overexpression in benign and malignant endometrium and its prognostic significance. Methods. EMA immunostaining was performed in 178 paraffin-embedded specimens including 105 endometrial cancers, 40 endometrial hyperplasias, and 33 benign endometriums. EMA immunostaining was correlated with traditional prognostic factors and progression-free survival in endometrial cancer specimens. Results. EMA overexpression was observed more frequently in adenocarcinomas (60%) than in hyperplasias (15%) or benign endometrium (9.1%). EMA overexpression was observed in two patients with endometrial hyperplasia who progressed to carcinoma. In adenocarcinomas, EMA overexpression had a positive correlation with nonendometrioid subtypes (P = 0.012). In multivariate analysis, FIGO stage (P = 0.025) and EMA overexpression (P = 0.017) were independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival. Conclusions. EMA overexpression appears to be a marker of malignant transformation in the endometrium and it is an independent predictor of recurrent disease in endometrial cancer.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)483-488
Number of pages6
JournalGynecologic oncology
Volume82
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2001

    Fingerprint

Keywords

  • Endometrial cancer
  • Epithelial membrane antigen
  • Prognostic factors
  • Recurrence
  • Survival

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Coronado, P. J., Fasero, M., Vidart, J. A., Puerta, J., Magrina, J., Furio-Bacete, V., & Escudero, M. (2001). A comparison of epithelial membrane antigen overexpression in benign malignant endometrium. Gynecologic oncology, 82(3), 483-488. https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2001.6283