2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.prp.2009.01.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The different expression of carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 1 (CEACAM1) and possible roles in gastric carcinomas

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
20
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
2
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similar changes on cEAcAM1 cellular distribution were also observed by Zhou et al [63] in gastric carcinoma. The authors analyzed cEAcAM1 expression in paraffin wax sections of 222 patients with gastric adenocarcinomas classified into three histo-ceAcAm1 And cAncer orIgInAl ArtIcles And reVIews types following the Laurén classification: intestinal, diffuse, and mixed carcinomas.…”
Section: Expression and Association Of Inhibitor Of Differentiation (supporting
confidence: 86%
“…Similar changes on cEAcAM1 cellular distribution were also observed by Zhou et al [63] in gastric carcinoma. The authors analyzed cEAcAM1 expression in paraffin wax sections of 222 patients with gastric adenocarcinomas classified into three histo-ceAcAm1 And cAncer orIgInAl ArtIcles And reVIews types following the Laurén classification: intestinal, diffuse, and mixed carcinomas.…”
Section: Expression and Association Of Inhibitor Of Differentiation (supporting
confidence: 86%
“…34 We think that different expression patterns and impact on angiogenesis may play crucial roles in gastric carcinogenesis and progression. In this study, we found that CEACAM1 has different expression patterns in nonneoplastic and neoplastic lesions and has different impacts on angiogenesis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All the 21 NSCLC were categorized into a high expression group (i.e., ≥ 66% positive tumour cells) and a low expression group (i.e., < 66% positive tumour cells) according to the percentage of positive tumour cells [23,29,30] (Figure  1). The high or low classifications were independently assigned by two experienced pathologists and consensus was achieved after discussion.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%