Evaluation of Microvascular Density in Glioblastomas in Relation to p53 and Ki67 Immunoexpression

Le résumé fourni par la source

Glioblastoma is the most aggressive tumor in the central nervous system, with a survival rate of less than 15 months despite multimodal therapy. Tumor recurrence frequently occurs after removal. Tumoral angiogenesis, the formation of neovessels, has a positive impact on tumor progression and invasion, although there are controversial results in the specialized literature regarding its impact on survival. This study aims to correlate the immunoexpression of angiogenesis markers (CD34, CD105) with the proliferation index Ki67 and p53 in primary and secondary glioblastomas. This retrospective study included 54 patients diagnosed with glioblastoma at the Pathology Department of County Emergency Clinical Hospital Târgu Mureș. Microvascular density was determined using CD34 and CD105 antibodies, and the results were correlated with the immunoexpression of p53, IDH1, ATRX and Ki67. The number of neoformed blood vessels varied among cases, characterized by different shapes and calibers, with endothelial cells showing modified morphology and moderate to marked pleomorphism. Neovessels with a glomeruloid aspect, associated with intense positivity for CD34 or CD105 in endothelial cells, were observed, characteristic of glioblastomas. Mean microvascular density values were higher for the CD34 marker in all cases, though there were no statistically significant differences compared to CD105. Mutant IDH1 and ATRX glioblastomas, wild-type p53 glioblastomas, and those with a Ki67 index above 20% showed a more abundant microvascular density, with statistical correlations not reaching significance. This study highlighted a variety of percentage intervals of microvascular density in primary and secondary glioblastomas using immunohistochemical markers CD34 and CD105, respectively, with no statistically significant correlation between evaluated microvascular density and p53 or Ki67.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.