Ki-67 MIB1 labelling index and the prognosis of primary TaT1 urothelial cell carcinoma of the bladder.

Aims: To evaluate whether ki-67 labelling index (LI) has independent prognostic value for survival of patients with bladder urothelial tumours graded according to the 2004 World Health Organisation classification. Methods: Ki-67 LI was evaluated in 164 cases using the grid counting method. Non-invasive (stage Ta) tumours were: papilloma (n = 5), papillary urothelial neoplasia of low malignant potential (PUNLMP; n = 26), and low (LG; n = 34) or high grade (HG; n = 15) papillary urothelial carcinoma. Early invasive (stage T1) tumours were: LG (n = 58) and HG (n = 26) carcinoma. Statistical analysis included Fisher and x2 tests, and mean comparisons by ANOVA and t test. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed according to the Kaplan–Meier method with log rank test and Cox’s proportional hazard method. Results: Mean ki-67 LI increased from papilloma to PUNLMP, LG, and HG in stage Ta (p,0.0001) and from LG to HG in stage T1 (p = 0.013) tumours. High tumour proliferation (.13%) was related to greater tumour size (p = 0.036), recurrence (p = 0.036), progression (p = 0.035), survival (p = 0.054), and high p53 accumulation (p = 0.015). Ki-67 LI and tumour size were independent predictors of disease free survival (DFS), but only ki-67 LI was related to progression free survival (PFS). Cancer specific overall survival (OS) was related to ki-67 LI, tumour size, and p27kip1 downregulation. Ki-67 LI was the main independent predictor of DFS (p = 0.0005), PFS (p = 0.0162), and cancer specific OS (p = 00195). Conclusion: Tumour proliferation measured by Ki-67 LI is related to tumour recurrence, stage progression, and is an independent predictor of DFS, PFS, and cancer specific OS in TaT1 bladder urothelial cell carcinoma.

Nuevos datos sobre fibrilación auricular, observaciones al estudio OFRECE. Respuesta

We appreciate the interest shown by Vidal-Pérez et al. in our article published recently in Revista Española de Cardiología,1 which provides us with an opportunity to present some interesting additional information not included in the article itself. We agree on the importance of knowing the thromboembolic risk of the population included in the OFRECE study, both for patients with a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation and for the general population. In our study, the mean (standard deviation) CHADS2 and CHAD2DS2-VASc of patients with atrial fibrillation was 2.3 (1.3) and 3.8 (1.6), respectively. In the general population, the mean (standard deviation) CHADS2 and CHAD2DS2-VASc of patients with atrial fibrillation was 0.8 (1) and 1.8 (1.5), respectively. The distribution of both scales is in agreement with that of the Val-FAAP and AFABE studies,2, 3 although the similarity is greater in the 2 population-based studies (Figure). These data are, we believe, relevant because they show that the level of risk in the population with atrial fibrillation is very similar to that of the populations included in clinical trials with new oral anticoagulants. In addition, an increasing body of evidence suggests that thromboembolic risk, as measured with these scales in the population without a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation, is associated with the onset of events.