الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 78 |  |  |
| | | from | 78 | | |
Abstract
The majority of cases of cervical cancer occur in developing countries with a large proportion of them presenting at advanced stages. Despite the major advances in treatments, relapse is still a major problem with a poor prognosis. New molecular markers are needed to improve the usual prognostic and predictive markers.
The goal of this study was to assess the correlation between Ki-67 and clinic-pathologic parameters as well as to determine whether there is an association between Ki-67, TILs and response to treatment including relation with OS and PFS.
Thirty patients diagnosed with cervical cancer were included in this study; Clinical data was obtained from patient files. The pathology blocks were retrieved from the archive and analysis of Ki-67 and TILs was performed.
Majority of the patients presented with FIGO stage IIIC1 and above. Nearly 80% were SCC, 10% adenocarcinoma and others 10%. Lymph node involvement was seen in about 70%.
Expression of Ki-67 in the study group was moderate to high with up to 70% of the patients having a score of ≥ 40%. The study did not seem to find a correlation between Ki-67 and clinic-pathologic parameters including tumor size (P=0.353), parametrial invasion (P(MC)=0.908), vaginal infiltration (P(MC)=0.251), lymph node spread (P(MC)=0.383) tumor grade (P(MC)=0.216 ) and histology (P(MC)=0.269).
When evaluating response to treatment in relation to Ki-67 (p=0.924) and TILs (p=0.183) the study was unable to find an association. This finding maybe attributable to the small sample size included in the study.
In terms of OS (p=0.248) and PFS (p=0.867) in relation to Ki-67, there was no statistically significant association.
When examining the association between Ki-67 and TILs, a statistically significant low positive correlation was observed. This relation needs to be further investigated.
The value of Ki-67 and TILs in cancer of the cervix as predictive and prognostic markers is still questionable as reported by other similar studies. A study preferably a prospective one, with a larger group and longer follow-up would be of great added value.