Ionizing radiation has been used to treat @entity5 for a century. However, radioresistance remains a major problem in the clinic. Recent advances in the understanding of the molecular events that occur following ionizing radiation leading to DNA damage and repair, apoptosis, and cell cycle arrests suggest new ways in which the radiation response might be manipulated. Seventy-eight cases of @entity189 of the same stage (II A and B) were analyzed retrospectively. All @entity1 were treated with radiotherapy (RT) with a dose varying from 35 Gy to 50 Gy with 200 cGy per fraction. Subsequent to the completion of radiotherapy, all @entity1 underwent surgery 4-6 weeks later. On histological examination of the surgical specimens, 51% of the cases (40) showed a complete response to therapy with no viable @entity5 cells. 49% of cases (38) had @entity41 ranging from a small focus to lesions extending through more than half the thickness of the cervical wall. @entity876 (mutant), @entity588 , @entity3544 and @entity589 proteins were studied on the paraffin sections of the biopsies (pretreatment) of those @entity1 who failed to respond to RT and compared to similar studies on biopsies of @entity1 who had a complete response to RT. In addition, the minichromosome maintenance (MCM) 2 proliferative marker was also done on all cases. Expression of all proteins was done using immunohistochemsitry. In the radioresistant cases, 15% (six cases) showed positivity for @entity588 and @entity3544 , respectively, and 34% (13 cases) showed mutant @entity876 . None of the radiosensitive @entity5 were positive for the above proteins. 75% of the radiosensitive @entity5 (30 cases) were positive for the @entity589 antibody, whereas 81% of the radioresistant @entity5 (31 cases) were negative for @entity589 . The @entity9965 proliferative marker was positive in > 80% of cells in 81.5% of radioresistant @entity5 (31 cases) as compared to < 40% of cells that were positive in 70% of radiosensitive @entity5 (28 cases). The P-value for the biological markers was calculated using the chi-squared test, and was highly significant (P < 0.01) for all the parameters tested. However, there was no statistical significance by univariate analysis when the dose of radiation was analyzed with respect to the markers and the histological response. There was also no correlation between the radiation response and timing of surgery. The above data strongly suggest that @entity589 , along with proliferative markers, could play a role in determining which @entity5 are likely to respond to radiation therapy. The presence of @entity588 , @entity3544 and @entity876 could also be related to radioresistance of the @entity5 .

Biologic factors and response to radiotherapy in XXXX .

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients'] @entity589 :: ('581', 'Gene') :: ['bax'] @entity588 :: ('596', 'Gene') :: ['bcl-2'] @entity41 :: ('MESH:D018365', 'Disease') :: ['residual tumors'] @entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['tumor', 'cancers', 'tumors'] @entity9965 :: ('4171', 'Gene') :: ['MCM2'] @entity3544 :: ('644914', 'Gene') :: ['p21'] @entity189 :: ('MESH:D002277', 'Disease') :: ['carcinoma of the cervix'] @entity876 :: ('7157', 'Gene') :: ['p53']
@entity189 :: (MESH:D002277,Disease) :: ['carcinoma of the cervix']
