Biomedical subjects

Rodney Schmidt

Publications and source records attributed to Rodney Schmidt.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2004

Relationship between non-small cell lung cancer fluorodeoxyglucose uptake at positron emission tomography and surgical stage with relevance to patient prognosis.

PURPOSE: Because the tumor stage is the most significant prognostic factor for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and given that NSCLC [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) uptake appears to have prognostic significance, we examined the relationship between NSCLC (18)F-FDG uptake and surgical stage. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: One hundred seventy-eight patients with a proven diagnosis of NSCLC were enrolled, then imaged with (18)F-FDG positron emission tomography and their disease thoroughly staged. Primary tumor size at computed tomography and (18)F-FDG uptake were compared to overall tumor stage and to T, N, and M stage descriptors. Tumor uptake was quantitated by maximum pixel-standardized uptake value (maxSUV) and then partial volume corrected for lesion size using recovery coefficients. RESULTS: A significant difference in tumor size was associated with tumors of different TNM stage, T status, N status, or M status. Similarly, the primary tumor maxSUV was significantly associated with TNM stage, T status, and M status. However, we observed no significant difference in the partial-volume-corrected tumor maxSUV for different stages; different T, N, or M descriptors; tumors without evidence of spread (N(0)M(0)) versus tumors with nodal spread (N(1,2,3)M(0)); or tumors without spread (N(0)M(0)) versus all others. CONCLUSIONS: We found an association between tumor stage and (18)F-FDG maxSUV, but this relationship disappeared after correction of tumor uptake for lesion size. Therefore, if partial-volume-corrected (18)F-FDG uptake is prognostic of NSCLC outcome, it is not on the basis of a relationship with tumor stage but through a different mechanism.

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung↗

PubMed2002

Immunophenotype of conjunctival melanomas: comparisons with uveal and cutaneous melanomas.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the immunophenotypic expression pattern of conjunctival melanomas, with the use of standard melanoma markers as well as microphthalmia transcription factor and p75 neurotrophin receptor. DESIGN: Eleven conjunctival melanomas, including 1 caruncular melanoma, were immunolabeled with a panel of antibodies that included S100, tyrosinase, melan-A, HMB-45 and HMB-50 combination, microphthalmia transcription factor, and p75 neurotrophin receptor. The results were tabulated on the basis of intensity and pervasiveness of labeling and compared with a previous study of uveal melanomas. RESULTS: Immunolabeling with S100 was at significantly higher levels in conjunctival melanomas than in uveal melanomas. Tyrosinase, HMB-45 and HMB-50 combination, melan-A, and microphthalmia transcription factor were expressed at high levels in conjunctival melanomas, whereas p75 neurotrophin receptor was not expressed. CONCLUSIONS: Melanomas of the conjunctiva, including the caruncle, expressed S100, tyrosinase, melan-A, HMB-45 and HMB-50 combination, and microphthalmia transcription factor at high levels, suggesting that these are good markers for this melanoma subtype. Expression of S100 was significantly higher in conjunctival melanomas than in uveal melanomas. The immunophenotypic pattern of conjunctival melanomas is most similar to the epithelioid subtype of cutaneous melanomas.

Biomarkers, Tumor↗

PubMed2002

Immunophenotypic differences between uveal and cutaneous melanomas.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the immunophenotypic differences between uveal and cutaneous melanomas, employing standard melanoma markers as well as p75 neurotrophin receptor (p75NTR) and microphthalmia transcription factor (MITF). DESIGN: Fifteen uveal melanomas (5 spindle, 5 epithelioid, and 5 mixed uveal subtypes) were immunolabeled with a panel of antibodies that included S100, tyrosinase, melan-A, HMB-45 and HMB-50 combination, MITF, and p75NTR. The results were tabulated on the basis of intensity and pervasiveness of the labeling and compared with a prior study on cutaneous spindle and epithelioid melanomas. RESULTS: In contrast to its strong labeling of cutaneous melanomas, S100 immunolabeling of uveal melanomas was weak and variable. p75NTR, known to differentiate spindle from epithelioid melanomas of the skin, did not immunolabel uveal melanomas. HMB-45, HMB-50, tyrosinase, melan-A, and MITF immunolabeled all uveal melanomas strongly, irrespective of the histologic subtype, but not cutaneous melanomas. Microphthalmia transcription factor was especially clear in its labeling of uveal melanomas. CONCLUSIONS: Although cutaneous and uveal melanomas share many molecular markers in common, there are differences between the 2 types of melanoma. First, the level of expression of S100 differs between cutaneous and uveal melanomas. Second, while cutaneous melanomas can be further subdivided into spindle and epithelioid types based on their immunophenotype, the uveal melanomas cannot.

Antigens, Neoplasm↗