Fibronectin and Periostin as Prognostic Markers in Ovarian Cancer

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. Immunohistochemical detection of fibronectin in ovarian cancer samples. (A) Images show representative examples of stromal fibronectin staining, scored as 1 (weak expression), 2 (moderate expression), and 3 (strong expression); (B) Images show a representative example of nuclear staining in cancer cells (image on the left) and lack of nuclear staining in cancer cells (image on the right); Pannoramic 250 Flash II Scanner, scale bar: 500 µm (upper panel) and 100 µm (lower panel).

• 

  Figure 2. (A). Correlation between fibronectin expression and the anatomical source of tumor specimen (χ2 test, p = 0.024) p—samples derived from peritoneal/omental metastatic disease; O—primary tumors (samples containing visible ovarian structures); T—samples containing only tumor tissue; (B). Examples of specimens derived from omental metastatic disease (P) with strong fibronectin expression; (C). Examples of specimens containing ovarian structures (O), green arrows indicate whitish corpuscles, red arrows indicate nests of cancer cells; (D). Correlation between fibronectin expression and the degree of desmoplastic reaction (χ2 test, p < 0.001). *—denotes p < 0.05.

• 

  Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier analysis of overall survival and disease-free survival in 108 patients with advanced ovarian cancers stratified by stronger fibronectin expression (score 2 & 3) versus weak fibronectin expression (score 1) in the tumor stroma.

• 

  Figure 4. Expression of fibronectin in tissue arrays. The y axis represents the number of samples. NAT—normal tissue adjacent to the tumor.

• 

  Figure 5. Immunohistochemical detection of periostin. Periostin expression was evaluated separately in cancer cells (upper panel) and in the tumor stroma (lower panel). Images show IHC staining in cancer cells scored either as “weak” or “strong” and IHC staining of stromal periostin scored 1–3. Pannoramic 250 Flash II Scanner, scale bar: 50 µm and 100 µm.

• 

  Figure 6. (A) Correlation between periostin expression and the anatomical source of tumor specimen (χ2 test, p = 0.032). P—samples derived from peritoneal/omental metastatic disease; O—primary tumor samples (containing visible ovarian structures); T—samples containing only tumor tissue; (B) Correlation between stromal periostin expression and the degree of desmoplastic reaction (χ2 test, p < 0.001). *—denotes p < 0.05.

• 

  Figure 7. Kaplan–Meier analysis of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in 108 patients with advanced ovarian cancer stratified by weak versus strong periostin expression in cancer cells and weak (score 1) versus higher (score 2 + 3) periostin expression in the tumor stroma.

• 

  Figure 8. Expression of periostin in tissue arrays. The y axis represents the number of samples. NAT—normal tissue adjacent to the tumor.

• 

  Figure 9. Kaplan–Meier analysis of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in 108 ovarian cancer patients in relation to clinico-pathological features. * HPF—high power field; R—residual disease: R0 = 0 cm, R1 < 0.5 cm, 0.5 cm ≤ R2 < 2 cm, 2 cm ≤ R3 ≤ 5 cm, R4 > 5 cm.

• 

  Figure 10. Kaplan-Meier analysis of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in 108 patients with advanced ovarian cancer stratified by combined FN1&POSTN scores (score 2 versus score 3–6).