Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Iranian Journal of Public Health logoLink to Iranian Journal of Public Health
. 2014 Jun;43(6):696–704.

Metallothionein Lower Under-Expression in Benign Tumors than That in Malignant Tumors: Systematic Review Article and Meta-Analysis

Jie ZHANG 1, Ruijie SUN 2, Yue LIU 1, Guinian WANG 3, Qinglu WANG 1,*
PMCID: PMC4475588  PMID: 26110140

Abstract

Metallothionein (MT) manifests varying expression levels in carcinomas, and they may be considered as valuable cell cancerization biomarkers for diagnosis of patients with cancers. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate comprehensively the MT expression difference in various benign tumors and malignant tumors, which compared the high with low MT expression levels in patients of the available studies. Finally, a total of 13 studies dealing with various tumors were involved for this meta-analysis. The results indicated that lower expression of MT in various benign tumors tissue than that in corresponding malignant tumors with the pooled OR of 0.52 (95 % CI 0.18-1.47, P < 0.001). In conclusion, MT expression difference is associated with tumor various stages in tumor patients and could be a useful clinical criteria of distinguishing benign tumors and malignant tumors for those patients.

Keywords: Metallothionein, Benign tumors, Malignant tumors, Meta-analysis

Introduction

In recent years, some studies about cancer are indicated that, when human’s some tissues occur cancer, human’s genes will appeared the abnormally expression of increase or decrease, we called these genes as cancer’s marker gene or DNA methylation. DNA methylation, a common DNA epigenetic modification, can cause many human diseases by altering gene transcriptional machinery (1). In addition, such genes also have significance to predict the treatment result of cancer patients. For example, overexpression of Ki-67 antigen in the patients suggests their shorter survival time in comparison with normal/lower expression patients (2). Thus, if the marker gene or DNA metjylation expression abnormally, generally speaking, it will be proved that the cancer cells are destroyed the human tissues.

These arise various and abundant marker genes in human tissue, these marker ranges from conventional single protein-, RNA-, or DNA-based markers to molecular signatures built on multiplex assays, for instance, metastatic lymph nodes in the axilla (3–6), serum cytokeratin fragment 21-1 (CYFRA 21-1) (7, 8), estrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) (9, 10). More recent investigations have revealed that benefit from crizotinib (11) and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies (12, 13) re spectively, a maker gene is indicated by ALK translocations in lung cancer and the absence of KRAS mutations in colorectal cancers. Metallothionein (MT) is also among them, and plays an important role in all marker genes.

MTs are highly conserved, small molecular weight, cysteine rich proteins. They guard cells against the effects of heavy metals and from damage induced by free radicals (14). MT has been involved in several aspects of cancer pathobiology, for example, differentiation, proliferation, apoptosis and invasion (15). Conclusion is reached that immuno-histochemically demonstrated MT expression is closely related to tumors stages (16). Furthermore, a major difference in MT expression was noted between different tumors stages even in the same tissue. For example, MT-III mRNA expression was remarkably higher in NSCLC (nonsmall-cell lung cancer) as against non-malignant lung tissues (17). The malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumors demonstrated higher MT-I/II expression as compared to the benign gastrointestinal stromal tumors, but not significantly higher (18). The levels of MT immunoreactivity were statistically appreciably higher in the tissue samples from squamous cell carcinoma than in those of the reference group and stromal samples (19). The MT expression level in gastrointestinal stromal tumor was confirmed to be significantly lower in comparison with gastric carcinoma tissues on the basis of the percentage stained and immunoreactive score (20). MT-expression in SCC (squamous cell carcinomas) (mean 2.89+/-1.83) was significantly higher than in actinic keratoses (mean 1.69+/-1.26) (P=0.006) and higher than in normal skin (mean 2+/-0.79) (p=0.0075) (21). Tumors showing incidental high metallothionein expression and negative p53 (metallothionein(H)/p53(-)) were significantly inversely related to depth of invasion, frequency of nodal metastasis, and Dukes stage (P < 0.01) (22). A significantly higher MT-I/II expression was noted in the grade 3 (G3) carcinomas as compared to those of G1 and G2 (23).

Therefore, metallothionein is supposed to be a useful biomarker linked to invasiveness, poor differentiation and malignant phenotype in tumor/cancer. However, the expression difference of MT detected by immunohistochemistry in benign tumors and malignant tumors remain controversial, and the number of cases enrolled in numerous studies published was not largely enough. Therefore, we need to analyze the data of MT systematically in different tumor/cancer to draw a sensible conclusion about its expression differences in benign tumors and malignant tumors from different tissues/organ.

This study used a meta-analysis to explore MT expression differences in benign tumors and malignant tumors from different tissues/organs and what type of tumor has a lower MT expression level than the same tissue cancer.

Methods

Literature search

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science databases based on the terms: “metallothionein”, “expression”, “neoplasms”, “Cancer”, “prognosis”, “benign”, “malignant” with all possible combinations to identify relevant published papers from Jan 1st, 1981 to Dec 31, 2013. The references of all the studies were manually searched for additional eligible studies. We also inspected review articles and bibliographies of other pertinent articles to find related articles.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria adopted for the meta-analysis included: 1) to evaluate metallothionein expression by immunohistochemistry in the human tumors and cancer tissues; 2) to assess the relationships between metallothionein expression level and tumor stages; 3) to be published in English language; 4) to provided sufficient information to estimate odds ratio (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

The articles were not in the scope of our analysis if they complied with these criteria: 1) letters, reviews, conference abstracts, case reports; 2) articles which do not offer enough data to calculate the OR about MT expression difference; 3) articles published in non- English; 4) overlapping articles (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Flow diagram of the study selection process

Data extraction and assessment of study quality

Two investigators (Ruijie Sun and Mengmeng Liu) reviewed each eligible study and extracted following data: the name of the first author, publication year, nationality, number of patients, number of benign tumor patients, number of malignant tumor patients, tumor site and antibody source. Controversies were left to the arbitration of the third investigator (Jie Zhang). Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was employed to evaluate the quality of each study (24). Finally we selected 12 articles, and the statistics of the benign and malignant numbers are respectively 333 and 569 (Fig. 2A).

Fig. 2A.

Fig. 2A

Open in a new tab

Forrest plot of odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% CIs of the MT expression in both benign and malignant tumors. OR<1 suggested that lower expression of MT in various benign tumors tissue than that in corresponding malignant tumors

Statistical analysis

Odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% CIs were combined to assess the link between metallothionein expression and clinicopathological factors, such as, the occurrence of different parts of human’s body, differentiation grade, Dukes’ stages, depth of invasion, lymphnode status and metastasis. For the pooled analysis of metallothionein expression difference in benign tumors and malignant tumors from different tissues/organs, ORs and its 95% CIs were the advocated summary statistics for meta-analysis of MT in different tumor stages. If these statistical variables were described in a literature, we pooled it directly; otherwise, they were calcu lated from available numerical data in the articles according to the methods described by Parmar (25). An observed OR=1 implies unfavorable parameters for the group with metallothionein expression difference in benign tumors and malignant tumors from different tissues/organs. The impact of increased metallothionein expression on different tumor stages was thought to be statistically significant if the 95% CIs did not overlap with 1. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed by Chi-square based Q statistical test. And the I2 statistic to quantify the total variation proportion, which is ascribed to inter study heterogeneity instead of sampling error and is measured from 0% to 100%. A P>0.10 for the Q-test indicated an absence of heterogeneity among the studies, then the pooled ORs estimate of each study were calculated by the random-effects model (the Mantel-Haenszel method). In other cases, the model of random-effects (the Der Simonian and Laird method) was used. Funnel plot was used to evaluate the probability of publication bias. The statistical analyses were carried out using Review Manager 5 software (The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). All the P values were for a two-side test and considered statistically significant when P<0.05.

Results

Description of studies

Totally 1157 studies were identified from a search of the above databases using the search strategy as described above (Fig. 1). A scrutiny of the abstracts and full-text of these studies showed that a total of 12 eligible studies were ultimately chosen in this meta-analysis (17, 20, 21, 26-34). The clinical features of these 12 included studies were summarized in Table 1. These studies were published from 1997 to 2013, and total 902 cancer patients, of which include various benign tumors and malignant tumors, were enrolled and investigated the MT expression difference between benign tumor and malignant tumor from various tissues/organs. Sample sizes ranged from 20 to 220 patients. 10 studies enlisted less than 100 patients and 2 studies involved more than 100 patients. Of these 12 studies, 3 studies were conducted in Poland, 2 each in Singapore, Northern Ireland and Greece, 1 each in Egypt, Denmark and Turkey.

Table 1.

Characteristics of studies included for the meta-analysis

References Country Patient (m/b)* Antibody source Tumor site Benign Overexpression oe/b(%)* Malignant overexpression oe/b(%)*
(17) Poland 34(17/17) monoclonal antibodies(DakoCytomation Glostrup, Denmark) Gastrointestinal 6/17 (35.3) 10/17 (58.8)
(26) Turkey 52 (27/25) Mouse monoclonal, CloneE9 (Neomarkers, USA) Ovarian 12/25(48) 25/27 (92.6)
(21) Poland 96(73/23) Ki-67 antigen (Dako, Denmark) Skin sections 21/23(92) 69/73(95)
(20) Singapore 53 (38/15) Primary mouse anti-horse antibody E9 ((Dako) Gastric 6/15(40) 6/38(15.9)
(27) Poland 66(35/31) monoclonal antibodiesby DakoCytomation (Glostrup, Denmark) Thyroid follicular 22/31 (70.9) 30/35 (85.7)
(28) Greece 73(52/21) E9 (Dako) Epithelial ovarian 1/21 (4.8) 12/52(23.9)
(29) Egypt 36 (30/6) E9 (Dako Corporation, Glostrup, Denmark) Prostatic 6/6(100) 20 /30(66.7)
(30) Northern Ireland 220(139/81) Monoclonal antibody E9 (DaKo, Ely, UK) Epithelial ovarian 2/81(2) 78/139(56)
(32) Greece 117 (94/23) monoclonal antibodies against Ki-67 (Dako) Colorectal 7/23(30) 24/94(25)
(31) Singapore 20(8/12) primary antibody E9 (Dako, Copenhagen, Denmark) Ovarian 8/12(66.7) 2/8(25)
(33) Northern Ireland 74 (21/53) Monoclonal antibody E9 (Dako, Copenhagen, Denmark). Cervical 50/53(94) 19/21(90)
(34) Denmark 61(35/26) MIBI(Immunotche Maresilles, France) mouse monoclonal IgCl antibody E9 (clone E9. DAKO, Denmark) Dermatofibromas 0/26(0) 7/35(20)
Open in a new tab

*b: Benign; m: Malignant; oe: Overexpression

Meta-analysis

For studies evaluating metallothionein expression in benign tumors and malignant tumors, there was obvious between-study heterogeneity among those 12 studies for metallothionein (I2=79%) (Fig. 2A), so the random-effect model and subgroup meta-analysis were used to calculate the pooled OR with corresponding 95 % CIs. We investigate each factor, including the test method, publication country, number of patient and the data extraction method, which contributed to the heterogeneity. The results showed that the meta-analysis is vigorously influenced obviously by 4 papers’ data which their data do not directly appear in the paper. So the 4 papers’ data, that is numbers of patients, were obtained according to inference of other data in the paper. For example, if these data were removed, the analysis results changed significantly with low heterogeneity between remained studies (chi2=13.64 (P=0.06) and I2= 49%). No matter before excluding 4 papers or after, the meta-analysis results all indicated that there is a lower metallothionein expression in benign tumors than that in malignant cancers. This conclusion may be associated with differential expression outcome in various tumors/carcinomas stages, with the pooled OR of 0.52 (95 % CI 0.18-1.47, P<0.00001) or 0.68 (95 % CI 0.41-1.10, P=0.12) in subgroup (Fig. 2A & Fig. 2C). The tissues analyzed in our meta-analysis include gastrointestinal, ovarian, skin sections, thyroid follicular, epithelial ovarian, prostatic, colorectal, cervical and dermatofibromas et al.

Fig. 2C.

Fig. 2C

Open in a new tab

Forrest plot of odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% CIs of the MT expression in both benign and malignant tumors

Publication bias

Funnel plot were used to determine the publication bias of the literatures. The shape of the funnel plot did not suggest any proof of obvious asymmetry (Fig. 2B & Fig. 2D).

Fig. 2B.

Fig. 2B

Open in a new tab

Funnel plot for the publication bias

Fig. 2D.

Fig. 2D

Open in a new tab

Funnel plot for the publication bias

Discussion

MT, a group of low-molecular-weight (6-7 kDa) intracellular metal-binding proteins expressed in many tissues (35), plays a vital role in apoptosis and proliferation, which can exert an influence on the carcinogenic process. However, there is no consensus on the MT expression difference in benign tumors and malignant tumors from different tissues/organ at present. Meta-analysis is a systematical approach applied widely to the evaluation of gene expression difference in different trials. Thus, a meta-analysis was conducted to determine the characteristic of MT expression difference in benign tumors and malignant tumors from different tissues/organ.

The study aimed at comparing the MT lower under-expression in the benign than the malignant by meta-analysis. And the statistical results have already displayed in the Fig.2A. Fig.2A showed MT expression differently in benign tumors and malignant tumors from different tissues/organs. Moreover, there is a lower metallothionein expression in benign tumors than malignant cancers.

The results disclosed the higher MT expression associated with malignant. MT as a representative of an important cancer’s marker gene has very important significance in the future clinical work. Especially, in the assessment for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant tumors, and evaluated the cancer patients’ treatment result. Previous many studies found that the MT expression level in tumor or cancer was up-regulated, however the comparative analysis of MT expression change in tumor various stages has not been established. To explore the difference of MT expression in tumor various stages(especially benign tumors and malignant tumors), our analysis combined the outcomes of 12 studies comprising 902 cancer patients, indicating that there is a lower metallothionein expression in benign tumors than that in malignant cancers (OR=0.52, 95 % CI 0.18-1.47, P<0.00001). In this meta-analysis, we had dealt with highly significant heterogeneity among the 12 studies. Although random effects models were used to analyze the data, heterogeneity was still a possible problem to affect meta-analysis results. So we only selected studies with methods of immunohistochemisty to lower heterogeneity as soon as possible, but source and dilutions of primary antibodies, evaluation standards (such as patients’ number or immunohisto-chemisty staining score), study location, number of patients, sex and age of patients were quite different, which contributed to the heterogeneity inevitably. When the analysis on the difference of MT expression in both benign and malignant tumors was performed without consideration of other factors, obvious heterogeneity was identified (I2= 79%). When 4 papers’ data were removed from data queue, the heterogeneity significantly reduce (I2= 49%). At the same time, this meta-analysis was limited in some ways. First, the study covered by our meta-analysis was confined only to articles published in English, which probably brought about extra bias. Second, previous some studies showed that there was a lower expression in tumor tissue than that in normal tissue. For instance, the most frequent molecular events connected to ependymoma recurrence were over-expression of kinetochore proteins and down-regulation of metallothioneins (36). Immunohisto-chemical evaluation of all metallothionein I/II isoforms in colorectal tumors has borne out an important down-regulation in comparison with normal tissue (37). MT expression drops with the degree of histological differentiation and drops with increasing tumor stage in hepatocellular carcinoma (38). 75/112 (67%) gastric carcinomas showed MT immunoreactivity with a significant lower expression in advanced gastric carcinomas (39). But these studies all were excluded because they failed to meet our criteria.

Conclusion

Despite of the limitations mentioned above, the current evidence suggests that the immunohisto-chemical evaluation of MT in benign tumors has revealed an important down-regulation in comparison with malignant tumors, this MT expression difference appeared in gastrointestinal, ovarian, skin sections, thyroid follicular, adrenal cortex, epithelial ovarian, prostatic, breast, colorectal, cervical and dermal tumor, respectively. However, larger-scale prospective studies are needed in future to further confirm our results.

Ethical considerations

Ethical issues (Including plagiarism, Informed Consent, misconduct, data fabrication and/or falsification, double publication and/or submission, redundancy, etc.) have been completely observed by the authors.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from the Program of Science and Technology Development of Shandong Province (2011YD21022) and the Program of Nature and Science of Shandong Wanjie Medical College (X12ZK01). The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.

References

  1. Koga Y, Pelizzola M, Cheng E, Krauthammer M, Sznol M, Ariyan S, et al. (2009). Genome-wide screen of promoter methylation identifies novel markers in melanoma. Genome Res, 19: 1462–1470. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Dziegiel P, Dumanska M, Forgacz J, Wojna A, Zabel M (2004). Intensity of apoptosis as related to the expression of metallothionein (MT), caspase-3 (cas-3) and Ki-67 antigen and the survival time of patients with primary colorectal adenocarcinomas. Rocz Akad Med Bialymst, 49 Suppl 1: 5–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Kim MJ, Park BW, Lim JB, Kim HS, Kwak JY, Kim SJ, et al. (2010). Axillary lymph node metastasis: CA-15–13 and carcinoembryonic antigen concentrations in fine-needle aspirates for preoperative diagnosis in patients with breast cancer. Radiology, 254: 691–697. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Choi JS, Kim MJ, Moon HJ, Kim EK, Yoon JH (2012). False negative results of preoperative axillary ultrasound in patients with invasive breast cancer: correlations with clinicopathologic findings. Ultrasound Med Biol, 38: 1881–1886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Moore A, Hester M, Nam MW, Brill YM, McGrath P, Wright H, et al. (2008). Distinct lymph nodal sonographic characteristics in breast cancer patients at high risk for axillary metastases correlate with the final axillary stage. Br J Radiol, 81: 630–636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM (2006). REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Breast Cancer Res Treat, 100: 229–235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Nakata B, Ogawa Y, Ishikawa T, Ikeda K, Kato Y, Nishino H, et al. (2000). Serum CYFRA 21–1 is one of the most reliable tumor markers for breast carcinoma. Cancer, 89: 1285–1290. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Nakata B, Takashima T, Ogawa Y, Ishikawa T, Hirakawa K (2004). Serum CYFRA 21–1 (cytokeratin-19 fragments) is a useful tumour marker for detecting disease relapse and assessing treatment efficacy in breast cancer. Br J Cancer, 91: 873–878. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ, et al. (2007). American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 25: 118–145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, et al. (2010). American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 28: 2784–2795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Shaw AT, Yeap BY, Solomon BJ, Riely GJ, Gainor J, Engelman JA, et al. (2011). Effect of crizotinib on overall survival in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring ALK gene rearrangement: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol, 12: 1004–1012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Allegra CJ, Jessup JM, Somerfield MR, Hamilton SR, Hammond EH, Hayes DF, et al. (2009). American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to antiepidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. J Clin Oncol, 27: 2091–2096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Blanke CD, Goldberg RM, Grothey A, Mooney M, Roach N, Saltz LB, et al. (2011). KRAS and colorectal cancer: ethical and pragmatic issues in effecting real-time change in oncology clinical trials and practice. Oncologist, 16: 1061–1068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Werynska B, Pula B, Muszczynska-Bernhard B, Piotrowska A, Jethon A, Podhorska-Okolow M, et al. (2011). Correlation between expression of metallothionein and expression of Ki-67 and MCM-2 proliferation markers in non-small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res, 31: 2833–2839. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Theocharis S, Klijanienko J, Giaginis C, Rodriguez J, Jouffroy T, Girod A, et al. (2011). Metallothionein expression in mobile tongue squamous cell carcinoma: associations with clinicopathological parameters and patient survival. Histopathology, 59: 514–525. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ofner D, Maier H, Riedmann B, Bammer T, Rumer A, Winde G, et al. (1994). Immunohistochemical metallothionein expression in colorectal adenocarcinoma: correlation with tumour stage and patient survival. Virchows Arch, 425: 491–497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Werynska B, Pula B, Muszczynska-Bernhard B, Gomulkiewicz A, Jethon A, Podhorska-Okolow M, et al. (2013). Expression of metallothionein-III in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Anticancer Res, 33: 965–974. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Pula B, Strutynska-Karpinska M, Markowska-Woyciechowska A, Jethon A, Wolowiec D, Rys J, et al. (2013). Expression of Metallothionein and Ki-67 Antigen in GISTs of Different Grade of Malignancy. Adv Clin Exp Med, 22: 513–518. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Dutsch-Wicherek M, Lazar A, Tomaszewska R, Kazmierczak W, Wicherek L (2013). Analysis of metallothionein and vimentin immunoreactivity in pharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma and its microenvironment. Cell Tissue Res, 352: 341–349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Soo ET, Ng CT, Yip GW, Koo CY, Nga ME, Tan PH, et al. (2011). Differential expression of metallothionein in gastrointestinal stromal tumors and gastric carcinomas. Anat Rec (Hoboken), 294: 267–272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Zamirska A, Matusiak L, Dziegiel P, Szybejko-Machaj G, Szepietowski JC (2012). Expression of metallothioneins in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and actinic keratosis. Pathol Oncol Res, 18: 849–855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Arriaga JM, Bravo IA, Bruno L, Morales Bayo S, Hannois A, Sanchez Loria F, et al. (2012). Combined metallothioneins and p53 proteins expression as a prognostic marker in patients with Dukes stage B and C colorectal cancer. Hum Pathol, 43: 1695–1703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Wojnar A, Pula B, Piotrowska A, Jethon A, Kujawa K, Kobierzycki C, et al. (2011). Correlation of intensity of MT-I/II expression with Ki-67 and MCM-2 proteins in invasive ductal breast carcinoma. Anticancer Res, 31: 3027–3033. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Stang A (2010). Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol, 25: 603–605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L (1998). Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med, 17: 2815–2834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Ozer H, Yenicesu G, Arici S, Cetin M, Tuncer E, Cetin A (2012). Immunohistochemistry with apoptotic-antiapoptotic proteins (p53, p21, bax, bcl-2), c-kit, telomerase, and metallothionein as a diagnostic aid in benign, borderline, and malignant serous and mucinous ovarian tumors. Diagn Pathol, 7: 124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Krolicka A, Kobierzycki C, Pula B, Podhorska-Okolow M, Piotrowska A, Rzeszutko M, et al. (2010). Comparison of metallothionein (MT) and Ki-67 antigen expression in benign and malignant thyroid tumours. Anticancer Res, 30: 4945–4949. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Zagorianakou N, Stefanou D, Makrydimas G, Zagorianakou P, Briasoulis E, Karavasilis V, et al. (2006). Clinicopathological study of metallothionein immunohistochemical expression, in benign, borderline and malignant ovarian epithelial tumors. Histol Histopathol, 21: 341–347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. El Sharkawy SL, Abbas NF, Badawi MA, El Shaer MA (2006). Metallothionein isoform II expression in hyperplastic, dysplastic and neoplastic prostatic lesions. J Clin Pathol, 59: 1171–1174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. McCluggage WG, Strand K, Abdulkadir A (2002). Immunohistochemical localization of metallothionein in benign and malignant epithelial ovarian tumors. Int J Gynecol Cancer, 12: 62–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Tan Y, Sinniah R, Bay BH, Singh G (1999). Metallothionein expression and nuclear size in benign, borderline, and malignant serous ovarian tumours. J Pathol, 189: 60–65. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ioachim EE, Goussia AC, Agnantis NJ, Machera M, Tsianos EV, Kappas AM (1999). Prognostic evaluation of metallothionein expression in human colorectal neoplasms. J Clin Pathol, 52: 876–879. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. McCluggage WG, Maxwell P, Bharucha H (1998). Immunohistochemical detection of metallothionein and MIB1 in uterine cervical squamous lesions. Int J Gynecol Pathol, 17: 29–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Rossen K, Haerslev T, Hou-Jensen K, Jacobsen GK (1997). Metallothionein expression in basaloid proliferations overlying dermatofibromas and in basal cell carcinomas. Br J Dermatol, 136: 30–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Vasak M (2005). Advances in metallothionein structure and functions. J Trace Elem Med Biol, 19: 13–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Peyre M, Commo F, Dantas-Barbosa C, Andreiuolo F, Puget S, Lacroix L, et al. (2010). Portrait of ependymoma recurrence in children: biomarkers of tumor progression identified by dualcolor microarraybased gene expression analysis. PLoS One, 5:e12932. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Arriaga JM, Levy EM, Bravo AI, Bayo SM, Amat M, Aris M, et al. (2012). Metallothionein expression in colorectal cancer: relevance of different isoforms for tumor progression and patient survival. Hum Pathol, 43: 197–208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Endo T, Yoshikawa M, Ebara M, Kato K, Sunaga M, Fukuda H, et al. (2004). Immunohistochemical metallothionein expression in hepatocellular carcinoma: relation to tumor progression and chemoresistance to platinum agents. J Gastroenterol, 39: 1196–1201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Tuccari G, Giuffre G, Arena F, Barresi G (2000). Immunohistochemical detection of metallothionein in carcinomatous and normal human gastric mucosa. Histol Histopathol, 15: 1035–1041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Iranian Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of Tehran University of Medical Sciences

RESOURCES