الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 213 |  |  |
| | | from | 213 | | |
Abstract
Worldwide, endometrial carcinoma represents the sixth most common malignant disorder and is the most common malignant tumor of the female genital tract. In Egypt, based on Globocan, corpus uteri cancer is ranked as the tenth most common cancer among women. In the era of targeted therapy, immunohistochemical markers play an important role in the treatment and prognosis of endometrial carcinoma. Therefore, there is always a search for prognostic markers. Despite wide treatment availability, endometrial cancers are a clinical challenge. This is mainly due to the development of chemoresistance and radioresistance and usually the diagnosis is done at an advanced disease stage. Endometrial cancer generally has a lower response rate to adjuvant treatment. The aim of the current work is to evaluate the expression of Keap1, estrogen and progesterone receptors immunoreactivities in a spectrum of endometrial carcinoma cases, correlate the immunohistochemical expression of Keap1, estrogen and progesterone receptors in endometrial carcinoma with the available clinicopathological parameters and evaluate the prognostic role of Keap1, estrogen and progesterone receptors expression in endometrial carcinoma. Paraffin blocks from 70 cases of endometrial carcinoma, 52 cases of endometrioid type and 18 cases of non-endometrioid type were subjected to H&E staining and immunohistochemical staining by Keap1, estrogen and progesterone receptors. Keap1 was expressed as cytoplasmic staining mainly and its expression was related to worse prognosis as it was significantly associated with non-endometrioid type, high grade, higher stage, deep myometrial invasion and lymhovascular invasion. Regarding nuclear staining, no data was analyzed due to its small percentage. Estrogen and progesterone receptors were expressed as nuclear staining. Estrogen and progesterone receptors expression was with good prognosis. Both ER and PR expressions associated significantly with endometrioid type and low grade .ER positive tumors were also associated significantly with; early stage, less myometrial invasion and no lymphovascular invasion while PR receptor status did not exhibit significant relation between its expression, FIGO staging, depth of myometrial invasion and lymphovascular invasion. So, ER status would be more reliable and associated with good prognosis when compared to PR status. In our study, we used three markers, Keap1, ER and PR and found significant relation between Keap1 expression and ER or PR expression as regard histopathological types and grade. The majority of cases of non-endometrioid type showed positive Keap1 expression and negative expression of ER or PR. Also, the majority of cases of high grade endometrial carcinoma showed positive Keap1 expression and negative ER or PR expression. Also, in comparison between positivity of three markers and tumor staging, higher stage (stage IV) showed positive Keap1 expression and negative ER or PR expression. Regarding myometrial invasion status, statistical significance was found between Keap1 and ER expressions and statistical insignificance between Keap1 and PR expressions.