Next Article in Journal
Spatial Multi-Omics in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Multi-Dimensional Approach to Understanding Pathology and Progression
Previous Article in Journal
Modulation of Sirtuin 3 by N-Acetylcysteine Preserves Mitochondrial Oxidative Phosphorylation and Restores Bisphenol A-Induced Kidney Damage in High-Fat-Diet-Fed Rats
Previous Article in Special Issue
Significance of TP53, CDKN2A, SMAD4 and KRAS in Pancreatic Cancer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
CIMB
Volume 46
Issue 5
10.3390/cimb46050297
cimb-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Immunohistochemical Expression Levels of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor, Cyclooxygenase-2, and Ki-67 in Canine Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinomas

by
João Miguel Luís
1,†,
Rita Files
1,†,
Cláudia Cardoso
1,
José Pimenta
2,3,
Gabriela Maia
1,
Filipe Silva
1,2,
Felisbina L. Queiroga
1,2,4,
Justina Prada
1,2 and
Isabel Pires
1,2,*
1
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
2
Animal and Veterinary Research Centre (CECAV) and Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Sciences (AL4AnimalS), University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
3
CIVG—Vasco da Gama Research Center/EUVG, Vasco da Gama University School, 3020-210 Coimbra, Portugal
4
Centre for the Study of Animal Science, CECA-ICETA, University of Porto, 4099-002 Porto, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2024, 46(5), 4951-4967; https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb46050297
Submission received: 26 March 2024 / Revised: 7 May 2024 / Accepted: 16 May 2024 / Published: 19 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Future Challenges of Targeted Therapy of Cancers)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) stands as the second most prevalent skin cancer in dogs, primarily attributed to UV radiation exposure. Affected areas typically include regions with sparse hair and pale or depigmented skin. The significance of spontaneous canine cutaneous SCC as a model for its human counterpart is underscored by its resemblance. This study assesses the expression of key markers—Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR), Cyclooxygenase-2 (Cox-2), and Ki-67—in canine cutaneous SCC. Our objective is to investigate the association between their expression levels and classical clinicopathological parameters, unraveling the intricate relationships among these molecular markers. In our retrospective analysis of 37 cases, EGFR overexpression manifested in 43.2% of cases, while Cox-2 exhibited overexpression in 97.3%. The EGFR, Cox-2 overexpression, and Ki-67 proliferation indices, estimated through immunohistochemistry, displayed a significant association with the histological grade, but only EGFR labeling is associated with the presence of lymphovascular emboli. The Ki-67 labeling index expression exhibited an association with EGFR and Cox-2. These findings propose that EGFR, Cox-2, and Ki-67 hold promise as valuable markers in canine SCC. EGFR, Cox-2, and Ki-67 may serve as indicators of disease progression, offering insights into the malignancy of a lesion. The implications extend to the potential therapeutic targeting of EGFR and Cox-2 in managing canine SCC. Further exploration of these insights is warranted due to their translational relevance and the development of targeted interventions in the context of canine SCC.

1. Introduction

Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) encompasses a variety of tumors originating in various anatomical locations, characterized by shared genetic mutations and expressions of squamous differentiation markers. Among the multiple types of SCC, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), an invasive and metastatic form originating from keratinocytes, is the second most common cutaneous neoplasm diagnosed in dogs [1,2,3,4,5,6,7].
Canine cSCC is associated with factors such as chronic sun exposure, absence of pigment in the epidermis, and sparse fur at the tumor site. However, its occurrence is not restricted to sun-exposed areas [8,9]. Canine cSCCs usually show local invasion, resulting in the gradual loss of underlying tissues. Although metastasis is considered rare or late in the progression of the disease, specific subtypes, such as nail bed cSCC, exhibit more aggressive behavior [10].
In the human context, cSCC is a public health challenge, due to its high incidence and associated medical costs. Risk factors include genetic predisposition, family history, pigmentation, exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR), human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, immunosuppression, and smoking [11,12,13,14]. cSCC has been classified into three subtypes—well-differentiated, moderately differentiated and poorly differentiated tumors—with well-differentiated being the most common, characterized by the presence of ‘keratin pearls’ (concentric layers of squamous cells with varying degrees of keratinization towards the center of the tumor nests) [9]. Several molecular pathways are implicated in the development of cSCC, including mutations in the P53 gene, alterations in suppressor genes such as CDKN2A and NOTCH, oncogenes such as RAS, and activation of the NF-kB, MAPK, and PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathways. In addition to genetic mutations, epigenetic changes can also play a role in this process [15,16,17,18,19].
Tumor biomarkers play a crucial role in oncology, offering a less invasive and low-cost approach than traditional methods, such as imaging and histology. In humans, these biomarkers provide information on the presence of tumor tissue, disease progression, prognosis, and detection of recurrences. However, in veterinary medicine, the use of biomarkers is still limited, due to their low sensitivity and specificity. The high rate of cell proliferation in malignant tumor tissues highlights the importance of molecules that are increasingly expressed as biomarkers [20,21,22,23]. These biomarkers, in oncology, can be grouped into diagnostic, prognostic, treatment, and prevention, identifying key mutations, molecular pathways, and other markers that guide individual therapy and estimate different outcome risks. Despite the challenges in veterinary medicine, research continues to improve the efficacy of these tools, aiming for benefits similar to those achieved in human oncology [20,21,22,23,24].
In normal skin tissue, the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) plays a vital role in cell proliferation, differentiation, and survival, as well as in the migration of keratinocytes during the healing of skin lesions [25,26]. However, its deregulation is a significant driver in cancer development, transforming its ligands and establishing an autocrine signaling cycle [27,28,29]. The EGFR family of related transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptors, when activated by ligands such as EGF or TGF, triggers signaling pathways that affect essential cellular processes, such as cell division, growth, differentiation, metabolism, and apoptosis. Dysregulation of EGFR is observed in several types of tumors [30,31,32,33].
Cox-2, an enzyme that converts arachidonic acid into prostaglandins, participates specifically in inflammatory processes [34,35]. Cyclooxygenase-2 (Cox-2) is frequently expressed in various types of cancer, playing multifaceted roles in carcinogenesis and resistance to therapies. Its presence in the tumor microenvironment contributes to cancer stem cell-like activities, promoting apoptotic resistance, angiogenesis, inflammation, invasion, and metastasis [36,37]. Cox-2 is secreted by cancer-associated fibroblasts, type 2 macrophage cells (M2), and cancer cells in the tumor microenvironment. Its presence induces cancer stem cell-like activities, promoting apoptotic resistance, proliferation, angiogenesis, inflammation, invasion, and metastasis of cancer cells. Cox-2-mediated hypoxia in the tumor microenvironment and positive interactions with YAP1 and anti-apoptotic mediators contribute to cancer cells’ resistance to chemotherapeutic agents [37,38,39].
The Ki-67 protein, present in the nuclear DNA of all vertebrates, is commonly used as a proliferation marker in tumors [40]. During the cell cycle, its location varies, found in the peri nucleolar region in the G1 phase, in the dense fibrillar component of the nucleolus during interphase, and associated with chromatin during mitosis [41,42]. The regulation of Ki-67 levels is complex, with maximum expression in mitosis and minimum expression at the end of G1 [43]. After passing the G1 restriction point, CDK4/CDK6 activation triggers RB phosphorylation, increasing Ki-67 mRNA transcription. The ubiquitin–proteosome system mediates the subsequent degradation of the Ki-67 protein in late mitosis and early G1, highlighting the complexity of cell proliferation regulation [42,44,45].
Due to their established roles in the aggressiveness and prognostication of several canine tumors, and the availability of therapeutic options regarding these markers for dogs, the main objective of this research is to analyze the expression levels of EGFR, Ki-67, and Cox-2 in canine cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas. The approach includes immunohistochemical methods through which to evaluate the expression levels of these markers and subsequently investigate the possible correlation between them and the clinicopathological characteristics of the tumors. In addition, this research aims to explore the interrelationships between the markers under study.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Tissue Samples

This study analyzed 37 cases of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas in dogs. The tumor samples were obtained from the Histology and Pathology Laboratory of the University of Trás-os-Montes and the Alto Douro archive. These tumors were collected during surgical procedures or necropsies, previously fixed in 10% buffered formalin, and embedded in paraffin. Clinical data, such as age, gender, and breed, were recorded for each animal.
The most common breeds of the animals with SCC were Boxers (n = 8) and Indeterminate (n = 4). Regarding sex distribution, 20 were females and 17 were males. The animals’ ages ranged from 1 to 17 years, with an average age of 8.5 years (±2.60).
Microscopic analysis involved staining 3 μm thick sections using hematoxylin and eosin. Two pathologists (IP and JP) conducted independent analyses for each sample, examining all slides in each section in detail. The histopathological diagnosis followed the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of animal tumors. A Nikon Eclipse E600 microscope, with a Nikon DXM1200 digital camera (Nikon Instruments Inc., Melville, NY, USA), was used for microscopical observations and image capture.

2.2. Histopathology

The following parameters were evaluated: keratinization/differentiation, nuclear pleomorphism, mitotic count, invasion pattern, invasion stage, and lymphoplasmacytic infiltration. Regarding the assessment of the mitotic index, cells in the process of mitosis were counted in 10 high-magnification fields using a 40× objective. These parameters were used to classify the histological degree of malignancy into three categories, following the methodology proposed by Annertoth et al. (1984) [46]. As described in Table 1, the cumulative scores of each parameter defined the histological grade of malignancy, as follows: Grade I, characterized by scores ranging from 5 to 10, indicates well-differentiated tumors. Grade II, with scores between 11 and 15, signifies moderately differentiated tumors. Lastly, Grade III, whose scores exceed 16, represents poorly differentiated tumors. Emboli, ulceration, and necrosis were also recorded [46].

2.3. Immunohistochemistry

For immunohistochemical analysis, 3 µm thick sections were used. The primary antibodies used were Ki-67 (Ki-67, clone MIB I, Dako®; dilution 1:50; 24 h at 4 °C), Cox-2 (Clone SP21, Transduction Laboratories ®, Lexington, KY, USA; dilution 1:40; 24 h at 4 °C) and EGFR (clone 31G7, Invitrogen ®, Paisley, Scotland, UK; 1:100 dilution; 45 min at room temperature).
Visualization of primary antibodies was achieved using the NovolinkTM Polymer Detection System (Leica Biosystems ®, Newcastle, United Kingdom), with 3,3′-diaminobenzidine tetrachloride (DAB) as a chromogen, following the manufacturer’s instructions. In summary, the sample processing began with a 15 min dewaxing phase. This was followed by a hydration process using a graded series of alcohol (100%, 95%, 80%, and 70%), with each stage taking 5 min. For antigen retrieval, the samples were immersed in a citrate buffer solution (10 mM, pH 6.0 ± 0.2) and heated in a 750 W microwave for three cycles of 5 min each. A 3% hydrogen peroxide solution was used for 30 min to suppress peroxidase activity. A 5 min application of a Protein Block followed. The samples were then incubated overnight at 4 °C with the MAC387 antibody (AbDSerotec, MorphoSys UK Ltd., Kidlington, Oxford, UK; Clone MCA 874G) at a dilution of 1:100 in PBS. Subsequently, a post-primary reagent and Novolink Polymer were each applied for 30 min. After rinsing with PBS, the samples were treated with 3,3-diaminobenzidine (DAB) for 10 min for development and counterstained with Gill’s hematoxylin for one minute. The sections were then washed and dehydrated using alcohol (95%, 95%, 100%, and 100%) for 3 min at each step, cleared in xylene, and mounted with Entellan mounting medium (Merck®). In previous works, all antibodies showed cross-reactivity in canine tissue samples [47,48,49,50].
Negative controls were established by excluding the primary antibody. For positive controls, various samples were employed, as follows: newborn dog kidney tissues were used to validate Cox-2 staining; normal skin and breast tumor samples were utilized for EGFR; the basal layer of normal skin was used for Ki-67.
Each sample underwent independent evaluation by two observers (IP and JP), both unaware of the clinical and pathological details. For this analysis, they used a Nikon Eclipse E600 microscope equipped with a Nikon DXM1200 digital camera, supplied by Nikon Instruments Inc., Melville, NY, USA. In instances of discrepancy, a third reviewer (LD) was consulted for further assessment. Final scoring was established through a consensus discussion among the reviewers.

2.4. Quantification of Immunostaining

2.4.1. Quantification of EGFR Immunostaining

EGFR antibody expression was evaluated using a semiquantitative method, and immunoreactivity was considered when a brownish marking was observed on the cytoplasmic membrane of the cells. The intensity of membrane labeling was evaluated as either weak (1), moderate (2), or strong (3). Overexpression was considered in cases where the membrane marking had strong intensity [51].

2.4.2. Quantification of Proliferation Index (Ki-67 Immunostaining)

The evaluation of Ki-67 expression was conducted using a quantitative method. Immunoreactivity was considered when labeling occurred in the nucleus, regardless of the intensity [52]. Detailed observation of each preparation was conducted, choosing the tumor area with the highest nuclear positivity and staining homogeneity. Each selected area was analyzed using a 40× objective, and the fraction of positive nuclei was determined in terms of percentage, accounting for at least 1000 tumor cells in 8 to 10 fields. The same observer performed all counts using a Nikon FXA® microscope with a checkerboard eyepiece, considering cell morphology [52]. Subsequently, tumors were classified into two groups (low and high), using the mean Ki-67 positivity values as the cutoff.

2.4.3. Quantification of Cox-2 Immunostaining

The evaluation of Cox-2 immunolabeling employed a semi-quantitative approach, according to the method described in [53]. This approach considers the proportion of positively stained tumor cells and their staining intensity. The percentage of positive cells was assigned scores from 1 to 4, with 1 indicating ≤10% positivity, 2 indicating 11–50%, 3 indicating 51–80%, and 4 indicating >80%. Similarly, staining intensity was rated on a scale of 1 to 3, corresponding to weak, moderate, and strong staining, respectively. The final score, used to classify the samples, was derived by multiplying the scores for extension and intensity. The mean IHS value established the cutoff point (HIS = 6). Samples were then categorized as having low expression (score ≤ 6) or high expression (score 7–12) [54].

2.5. Statistical Evaluation

To verify whether the Cox-2, Ki-67, and EGFR markers were statistically related to the histopathological parameters (histological grade and emboli) to be evaluated, or to each other, the SPSS program (version 12.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used. The results were expressed as absolute and relative frequencies, and a descriptive analysis was carried out regarding clinicopathological characteristics. The association between markers and histopathological characteristics was evaluated using the Chi-square (χ2) and Fisher exact tests, and descriptive analysis was carried out. Bonferroni correction was applied to account for multiple tests, adjusting the significance level for the number of comparisons made. Associations with a corrected p-value < 0.05 were considered statistically relevant.

3. Results

3.1. Histopathological Evaluation

Based on the criteria previously mentioned, the classification of the tumors resulted in the following distribution, as shown in Table 2: 10 cases (27.03%) were classified as well-differentiated tumors (Grade I), 15 cases (40.54%) as moderately differentiated tumors (Grade II), and 12 cases (32.43%) as poorly differentiated tumors (Grade III). Additionally, characteristics such as ulceration, necrosis, and vascular emboli were recorded. A majority of the tumors were ulcerated (89.2%), a majority showed areas of necrosis (97.3%), and lymphovascular emboli were observed in seven tumors (18.9%).

3.2. Immunohistochemical Evaluation

3.2.1. Immunohistochemical Expression of EGFR

EGFR labeling was primarily observed in the cytoplasms and cell membranes of both tumor and normal cells, with the labeling being homogeneous along the cell periphery. Among the tumor cells, 16 samples (43.2%) presented overexpression, while 21 (56.8%) showed low expression, as in Figure 1.
Regarding histopathological parameters, since almost all cases were ulcerated and contained necrotic areas, only histological grade and lymphovascular emboli were considered for statistical purposes. All cases of histological Grade I showed no overexpression of EGFR, as demonstrated in Figure 2. Conversely, most cases in Grades II and III have high EGFR labeling. All of the cases with emboli showed overexpression of EGFR, whereas most cases without did not show overexpression of this receptor (21/30).
The statistical analysis showed the EGFR expression and the histological grade of malignancy, and the presence of emboli revealed a significant statistical association (p = 0.04 and 0.01).

3.2.2. Proliferation Index Detected by Ki-67

All cases were positive for Ki-67 in the tumor and in the basal layer of the non-tumoral epidermis adjacent to the tumor. The percentage of positive cells in the analyzed SCCs ranged between 23% and 78%, with a mean of 41.7 and a standard deviation of 9.16. Two categories were created—low and high proliferation—with the cutoff being the mean of positive tumor cells. In total, 18 cases showed low labeling (48.6%), and 19 showed high labeling (51.4%); see Figure 3.
Analyzing proliferation and histopathological characteristics, it was observed that all tumors with emboli (7/37) presented high proliferation. Considering the histological grade, most Grade I tumors showed low proliferation, while, in Grade III tumors, the majority (10/12) showed high proliferation, as in Figure 4. The statistical analysis thus revealed a significant association between cell proliferation in SCCs and the histological grade of malignancy, (p = 0.02), but not with lymphovascular emboli.

3.2.3. Immunohistochemical Expression of Cox-2

Cox-2 staining was observed predominantly in the cytoplasms of tumor cells. The staining pattern was not uniform across the samples, showing variability in intensity, particularly in areas of invasion where it was more pronounced.
The staining patterns varied, including dot-like, diffuse granular, or homogeneous distributions within the cytoplasm. Additionally, Cox-2 labeling was detected in macrophages and plasma cells, indicating its presence beyond just tumor cells.
A significant majority, 97.3% of cases, exhibited positive staining for Cox-2, with only a single case showing negative staining. Out of 37 cases examined, 16 demonstrated high Cox-2 expression (Figure 5).
Cases with emboli frequently exhibited Cox-2 overexpression, contrasting with most cases without emboli, which showed no such overexpression (20 out of 30 cases). However, no statistically significant association was noted.
Furthermore, Cox-2 expression, categorized into high and low levels, was statistically associated with the histological grade of malignancy (p = 0.01). Low Cox-2 expression was predominant in Grade I tumors, with 9 out of 10 tumors showing low levels and only one exhibiting high expression. For Grade II tumors, the majority also displayed low Cox-2 expression (10 out of 15 cases). Conversely, Grade III tumors primarily showed high Cox-2 expression (10 out of 12 cases), suggesting a link between Cox-2 expression levels and tumor grade, as in Figure 6.

3.2.4. Associations between the Proliferation Index, the Immunoexpression of EGFR, and Cox-2

A statistical association was revealed between Ki-67 and Cox-2 (p = 0.02) and between Ki-6 and EGFR (p = 0.02). The association between EGFR and Cox-2 was insignificant (p = 0.14).
Table 3 reviews the information on the clinical evaluations of histopathological and immunohistochemical findings for each animal included in this study.

4. Discussion

Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is a significant form of cutaneous neoplasia in dogs, accounting for approximately 4–10% of cases [7]. The molecular changes associated with these carcinomas are not yet fully understood [3,55].
Identifying new tumor markers is crucial in veterinary oncology to better understand and approach these complex cases. So, this study aims to investigate the expression levels of EGFR, Ki-67, and Cox-2 in SCCs by analyzing their associations with the histological grade of malignancy and histopathological features.
The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) plays key roles in the cell cycle, cell proliferation, cell survival, migration, cell adhesion, and angiogenesis [56,57]. Based on our results, we observed that 43.2% of the tumors studied showed an underexpression of EGFR. These results align with other studies on canine tumors such as oral squamous cell carcinoma [58] and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma [58]. EGFR overexpression is also commonly observed in various types of human squamous cell carcinomas, such as cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma [59,60], head and neck squamous cell carcinoma [61,62], and oral squamous cell carcinoma [63].
In 43.2% of cases, we noted a consistent overexpression pattern, as previously documented. Furthermore, our investigation unveiled a significant correlation between EGFR expression and tumor malignancy (p = 0.04), further substantiating the established connection between EGFR expression levels and tumor aggressiveness. This association has been observed in canine oral squamous cell carcinoma [58], but there are almost no other studies in dogs. Considering human cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, EGFR overexpression is observed in 70% of cSCCs and is associated with metastasis [51] and poor outcome [59]. However, the association with histological grade is not universal [51].
The signaling pathways affected by EGFR activation include RAS-RAF-MEK-MAPK, PLC-gamma/PKC and PI3K/AKT/mTOR, and STAT and NF-kB activation. These pathways play crucial roles in cell proliferation, migration, survival, resistance to apoptosis, and differentiation, all of which are frequently altered in tumors, including squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Significantly, alterations in the structure or expression of EGFR can trigger tumorigenesis, and the EGFR-STAT3-PD-L1 pathway plays crucial roles in cancer growth and metastasis. Inhibiting this pathway can effectively reduce cancer migration and invasion, suggesting potential therapeutic targets in the treatment of cSCC [64,65,66]. Therapy for cSCC with EGFR inhibitors, including monoclonal antibodies (e.g., cetuximab and panitumumab) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (gefitinib and erlotinib), has emerged as a promising approach. However, the efficacy of these treatments in human cSCCs is variable [64,65,66]. EGFR inhibitors are better tolerated than chemotherapy, making them a preferred option for human patients who are elderly or have multiple health issues. In such cases, a combined approach using miR-634 ointment and EGFR inhibitors could potentially enhance both the effectiveness and the length of response in treating locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, compared to using EGFR inhibitors alone [67]. Studies in dogs are needed to investigate the effectiveness of these treatments in cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas.
The Ki-67 protein is a nuclear marker associated with cell proliferation and is present in all cell cycle phases (S, G1, G2, and M) [68]. Its expression occurs in cells that are dividing, but not in quiescent cells (G0), making it a valuable marker for assessing the proliferation rate in various types of cancer [42,45]. The detection of Ki-67 in cancerous tissues helps to characterize the cells’ proliferative activity, providing crucial information for assessing the degree of malignancy and guiding diagnostic and therapeutic strategies [69,70,71].
The results obtained in this study revealed a high expression of Ki-67 in 51.4% of cases. In addition, there was a significant association between Ki-67 expression and the histological grade of malignancy (p = 0.02). These findings are consistent with studies in oral canine squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) [72].
The associations of Ki-67 expression with the histological grade of malignancy reinforce the role of Ki-67 as an indicator of tumor aggressiveness in cases of SCC in dogs. In human cSCC, Ki-67 has not been associated with histological grade [73,74], but with a poor prognosis in cases of laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma [75], head and neck squamous cell carcinoma [76], and oral squamous cell carcinoma [77].
A possible future therapy may involve palbociclib, which depletes Ki-67 and cyclin A protein levels, demonstrating its power to inhibit the action of Ki-67 [78]. As Ki-67 measures proliferative activity, any cytotoxic drug that acts on proliferation could be promising for treating tumors with high Ki-67 expression in dogs, which aligns with similar findings in human studies [78,79,80].
Cox-2-mediated prostaglandins, namely PGE2, play a versatile role in various physiological and pathological processes, including blood vessel dilation and increased microvascular permeability [81,82]. The interaction between the different Cox isoforms and the production of prostaglandins, especially PGE2, highlights the central role of these enzymes in regulating the inflammatory response, as well as in various biological processes [83,84].
In our study, 97.3% of the cases were positive for Cox-2, with 16 exhibiting high Cox-2 expression. Previous studies have also shown a high expression levels of Cox-2 in squamous cell carcinoma in dogs in 9 out of 9 [85], 9 out of 9 [86], 10 out of 10 [87], and 7 out of 8 total cases studied [88]. In human tumors, Cox-2 is also expressed in cutaneous SCC [89,90].
When comparing Cox-2 expression among tumors of different grades, an association was found between Cox-2 expression and the degree of malignancy (p = 0.01). In dogs, as far as we know, no studies compare the expression of Cox-2 across different histological grades in cutaneous SCC. In humans, studies found no correlation between Cox-2 expression in cutaneous SCC and histological grade [91,92]. However, high expression of Cox-2 has been associated with angiogenesis [93], epithelial–mesenchymal transition [94] and prognosis [95].
Although Cox-2 expression has been reported in several canine tumors, the therapeutic potential of Cox-2 inhibitors is still subjective, or has not been determined, in most cases [96]. Tumors expressing Cox-2 can be targeted for treatment with Cox-2 inhibitors, such as meloxicam or piroxicam, which have been shown to inhibit cell proliferation and angiogenesis [96,97]. In both human [98,99,100] and veterinary medicine [101,102], targeting Cox-2 with selective Cox-2 inhibitors has been helpful, or could be a promising therapeutic approach for SCC treatment. Prior determination of Cox-2 expression in tumors is crucial for successful treatment with these inhibitors [103,104].
Our results also suggest that prior determination of the immunoexpression of these markers could be useful in clinical practice when evaluating therapeutic options. Given that immunohistochemistry is a relatively easy and accessible method, its routine inclusion in diagnosing these tumors could be crucial. For instance, evaluating Cox-2 expression in tumors may be important for assessing treatment efficacy with Cox-2 inhibitors. Also, using the Ki-67 index to assess tumor cell proliferation could be a helpful tool.
In our study on cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCCs), we evaluated the expression levels of EGFR, Ki-67, and Cox-2, as well as the possible correlations between them. We observed a significant association between Ki-67 and EGFR (p = 0.02), indicating that most cases with EGFR overexpression were associated with high Ki-67 expression. These results are consistent with findings in human brain and breast tumors, where the relationship between EGFR and Ki-67 was also statistically relevant [105]. In the case of human non-small-cell lung cancer, no association has been shown between EGFR and Ki-67 [106] A correlation was observed between EGFR overexpression and a high Ki-67 labeling index, while the opposite was also observed, in that the absence of EGFR expression coincided with a low Ki-67 labeling index. Considering that EGFR is associated with mitosis, cell proliferation, and migration, and Ki-67 is related to proliferative activity, we can infer that an increase in EGFR expression is directly linked to an increase in Ki-67, and vice versa. Similar results were found between Ki-67 and Cox-2 (p = 0.02), contrary to those described by Poggiani et al. in 2012, with 10 cases of canine SCC [87], as well as in other tumors, such as human colorectal cancer [107]. Our findings align with those of Escobar et al. (2023), who identified a correlation between less differentiated stages of oral squamous cell carcinomas and increased cellular proliferation rates, thereby facilitating tumor advancement [108]. However, we found no statistically significant associations between EGFR and Cox-2. In contrast, in canine mammary tumors, an association between Cox-2 and EGFR was revealed [103]. Combining various therapies is essential for more satisfactory results [109,110,111], such as an EGFR blocker and a COX-2 inhibitor, as proposed in human advanced SCC [112]. These approaches indicate a promising avenue for treating tumors in dogs, underscoring the necessity for ongoing research to gain deeper insights into the therapeutic advantages they offer.
One limitation of this study is the relatively small number of cases. Several cases initially included in this study had to be excluded, due to technical issues probably related to the fixation and preservation of some samples. However, our results highlight the complexity of molecular interactions in this type of cancer and underline the need for further research with other techniques aside from immunohistochemistry to understand these relationships and their implications for therapeutic approaches.
In summary, molecular research into SCC is crucial to understanding its biology and developing effective strategies in veterinary oncology. Potential tumor markers, such as Cox-2, Ki-67, and EGFR, significantly correlate with tumor characteristics; thus, they could reveal prognosis and, in the cases of Cox-2 and EGFR, therapeutic potential. Future studies may explore specific therapeutic approaches, considering the molecular pathways involved in developing and progressing SCC in dogs.

5. Conclusions

These potential tumor markers are significantly associated with the histological grade of malignancy, highlighting their potential as prognostic markers and therapeutic targets in veterinary oncology.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: F.L.Q. and I.P.; Methodology: J.M.L., R.F., J.P. (Justina Prada) and I.P.; Software: F.S.; Validation: R.F., C.C., G.M., F.S., F.L.Q., J.P. (Justina Prada) and I.P.; Formal analysis: F.S., F.L.Q., J.P. (Justina Prada) and I.P.; Investigation: C.C.; Resources: I.P.; Data curation: J.P. (José Pimenta); Writing—original draft: J.M.L., R.F., C.C. and I.P.; Writing—review & editing: R.F., C.C., J.P. (José Pimenta), G.M., F.S., F.L.Q., J.P. (Justina Prada) and I.P.; Visualization: I.P.; Supervision: I.P.; Project administration: I.P.; Funding acquisition: F.S., F.L.Q. and I.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the project UIDB/00772/2020 (Doi:10.54499/UIDB/00772/2020) funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cocuz, I.G.; Cocuz, M.E.; Repanovici, A.; Sabău, A.-H.; Niculescu, R.; Tinca, A.-C.; Vunvulea, V.; Budin, C.E.; Szoke, A.R.; Popelea, M.C.; et al. Scientific Research Directions on the Histopathology and Immunohistochemistry of the Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Scientometric Study. Medicina 2022, 58, 1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sánchez-Danés, A.; Blanpain, C. Deciphering the Cells of Origin of Squamous Cell Carcinomas. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2018, 18, 549–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Yan, Y.; Gauthier, M.-A.; Malik, A.; Fotiadou, I.; Ostrovski, M.; Dervovic, D.; Ghadban, L.; Tsai, R.; Gish, G.; Loganathan, S.K.; et al. The NOTCH-RIPK4-IRF6-ELOVL4 Axis Suppresses Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Cancers 2023, 15, 737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Azin, M.; Demehri, S. Innate Lymphoid Cells: New Targets for Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Immunotherapy. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2021, 141, 2320–2322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kok, M.K.; Chambers, J.K.; Ong, S.M.; Nakayama, H.; Uchida, K. Hierarchical Cluster Analysis of Cytokeratins and Stem Cell Expression Profiles of Canine Cutaneous Epithelial Tumors. Vet. Pathol. 2018, 55, 821–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lascelles, B.D.X.; Parry, A.T.; Stidworthy, M.F.; Dobson, J.M.; White, R.A.S. Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Nasal Planum in 17 Dogs. Vet. Rec. 2000, 147, 473–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Marques, G.R.; Rocha, L.F.; Vargas, T.H.M.; Pulz, L.H.; Huete, G.C.; Cadrobbi, K.G.; Pires, C.G.; Sanches, D.S.; Mota, E.F.F.; Strefezzi, R.F. Relationship of Galectin-3 Expression in Canine Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinomas with Histopathological Grading and Proliferation Indices. J. Comp. Pathol. 2020, 178, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Oh, Y.; Zheng, Z.; Kim, K.-Y.; Xu, X.; Pei, M.; Oh, B.; Kim, S.K.; Chung, K.Y.; Roh, M.R. A Nomogram Combining Clinical Factors and Biomarkers for Predicting the Recurrence of High-Risk Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. BMC Cancer 2022, 22, 1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Ortloff, A.; Bustamante, F.A.; Molina, L.; Ojeda, J.; Figueroa, C.D.; Ehrenfeld, P. Kallikrein-Related Peptidase 5 (KLK5) Expression and Distribution in Canine Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J. Comp. Pathol. 2020, 174, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Sanz Ressel, B.L.; Massone, A.R.; Barbeito, C.G. Immunohistochemical Expression of Selected Phosphoproteins of the mTOR Signalling Pathway in Canine Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Vet. J. 2019, 245, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bottomley, M.J.; Thomson, J.; Harwood, C.; Leigh, I. The Role of the Immune System in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Riihilä, P.; Nissinen, L.; Knuutila, J.; Rahmati Nezhad, P.; Viiklepp, K.; Kähäri, V.-M. Complement System in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Villani, A.; Potestio, L.; Fabbrocini, G.; Scalvenzi, M. New Emerging Treatment Options for Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma and Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Adv. Ther. 2022, 39, 1164–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Yesantharao, P.; Wang, W.; Ioannidis, N.M.; Demehri, S.; Whittemore, A.S.; Asgari, M.M. Cutaneous Squamous Cell Cancer (cSCC) Risk and the Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) System. Hum. Immunol. 2017, 78, 327–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bobin, C.; Ingrand, P.; Dréno, B.; Rio, E.; Malard, O.; Espitalier, F. Prognostic Factors for Parotid Metastasis of Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck. Eur. Ann. Otorhinolaryngol. Head Neck Dis. 2018, 135, 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Brown, V.L.; Harwood, C.A.; Crook, T.; Cronin, J.G.; Kelsell, D.P.; Proby, C.M. p16INK4a and p14ARF Tumor Suppressor Genes Are Commonly Inactivated in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2004, 122, 1284–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kim, J.Y.S.; Kozlow, J.H.; Mittal, B.; Moyer, J.; Olenecki, T.; Rodgers, P.; Alam, M.; Armstrong, A.; Baum, C.; Bordeaux, J.S.; et al. Guidelines of Care for the Management of Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2018, 78, 560–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Luci, C.; Bihl, F.; Bourdely, P.; Khou, S.; Popa, A.; Meghraoui-Kheddar, A.; Vermeulen, O.; Elaldi, R.; Poissonnet, G.; Sudaka, A.; et al. Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Development Is Associated with a Temporal Infiltration of ILC1 and NK Cells with Immune Dysfunctions. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2021, 141, 2369–2379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tsang, D.A.; Tam, S.Y.C.; Oh, C.C. Molecular Alterations in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Immunocompetent and Immunosuppressed Hosts—A Systematic Review. Cancers 2023, 15, 1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Aronson, J.K.; Ferner, R.E. Biomarkers—A General Review. Curr. Protoc. Pharmacol. 2017, 76, 9.23.1–9.23.17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Purkayastha, K.; Dhar, R.; Pethusamy, K.; Srivastava, T.; Shankar, A.; Rath, G.; Karmakar, S. The Issues and Challenges with Cancer Biomarkers. J. Can. Res. Ther. 2023, 19, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Adil, S.; Paracha, R.Z.; Tariq, S.; Nisar, M.; Ijaz, S.; Siddiqa, A.; Hussain, Z.; Amir, A. A Computational Systems Analyses to Identify Biomarkers and Mechanistic Link in Psoriasis and Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 662528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ganguly, A.; Frank, D.; Kumar, N.; Cheng, Y.-C.; Chu, E. Cancer Biomarkers for Integrative Oncology. Curr. Oncol. Rep. 2019, 21, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Alfano, C.; Farina, L.; Petti, M. Networks as Biomarkers: Uses and Purposes. Genes 2023, 14, 429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Sigismund, S.; Avanzato, D.; Lanzetti, L. Emerging Functions of the EGFR in Cancer. Mol. Oncol. 2018, 12, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Fortunato, C.; Giampaolo, T. EGFR Antagonists in Cancer Treatment. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 358, 1160–1174. [Google Scholar]
  27. Simond, A.M.; Muller, W.J. In Vivo Modeling of the EGFR Family in Breast Cancer Progression and Therapeutic Approaches. In Advances in Cancer Research; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; Volume 147, pp. 189–228. ISBN 978-0-12-820142-8. [Google Scholar]
  28. Roskoski, R. Small Molecule Inhibitors Targeting the EGFR/ErbB Family of Protein-Tyrosine Kinases in Human Cancers. Pharmacol. Res. 2019, 139, 395–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Liu, X.; Wang, P.; Zhang, C.; Ma, Z. Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR): A Rising Star in the Era of Precision Medicine of Lung Cancer. Oncotarget 2017, 8, 50209–50220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ayati, A.; Moghimi, S.; Toolabi, M.; Foroumadi, A. Pyrimidine-Based EGFR TK Inhibitors in Targeted Cancer Therapy. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2021, 221, 113523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cui, J.; Hu, Y.-F.; Feng, X.-M.; Tian, T.; Guo, Y.-H.; Ma, J.-W.; Nan, K.-J.; Zhang, H.-Y. EGFR Inhibitors and Autophagy in Cancer Treatment. Tumor Biol. 2014, 35, 11701–11709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, Q.; Yu, S.; Zhao, W.; Qin, S.; Chu, Q.; Wu, K. EGFR-TKIs Resistance via EGFR-Independent Signaling Pathways. Mol. Cancer 2018, 17, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Quesnelle, K.M.; Boehm, A.L.; Grandis, J.R. STAT-mediated EGFR Signaling in Cancer. J Cell. Biochem. 2007, 102, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Hashemi Goradel, N.; Najafi, M.; Salehi, E.; Farhood, B.; Mortezaee, K. Cyclooxygenase-2 in Cancer: A Review. J. Cell. Physiol. 2019, 234, 5683–5699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Hugo, H.J.; Saunders, C.; Ramsay, R.G.; Thompson, E.W. New Insights on COX-2 in Chronic Inflammation Driving Breast Cancer Growth and Metastasis. J. Mammary Gland Biol. Neoplasia 2015, 20, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Sabichi, A.L.; Lippman, S.M. COX-2 Inhibitors and Other Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs in Genitourinary Cancer. Semin. Oncol. 2004, 31, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Liao, Z.; Mason, K.A.; Milas, L. Cyclo-Oxygenase-2 and Its Inhibition in Cancer: Is There a Role? Drugs 2007, 67, 821–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Surh, Y.-J.; Kundu, J.K. Signal Transduction Network Leading to COX-2 Induction: A Road Map in Search of Cancer Chemopreventives. Arch. Pharm. Res. 2005, 28, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Mohan, S.; Epstein, J.B. Carcinogenesis and Cyclooxygenase: The Potential Role of COX-2 Inhibition in Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancer. Oral Oncol. 2003, 39, 537–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Menon, S.S.; Guruvayoorappan, C.; Sakthivel, K.M.; Rasmi, R.R. Ki-67 Protein as a Tumour Proliferation Marker. Clin. Chim. Acta 2019, 491, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Graefe, C.; Eichhorn, L.; Wurst, P.; Kleiner, J.; Heine, A.; Panetas, I.; Abdulla, Z.; Hoeft, A.; Frede, S.; Kurts, C.; et al. Optimized Ki-67 Staining in Murine Cells: A Tool to Determine Cell Proliferation. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2019, 46, 4631–4643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sobecki, M.; Mrouj, K.; Camasses, A.; Parisis, N.; Nicolas, E.; Llères, D.; Gerbe, F.; Prieto, S.; Krasinska, L.; David, A.; et al. The Cell Proliferation Antigen Ki-67 Organises Heterochromatin. eLife 2016, 5, e13722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Li, L.T.; Jiang, G.; Chen, Q.; Zheng, J.N. Ki67 Is a Promising Molecular Target in the Diagnosis of Cancer (Review). Mol. Med. Rep. 2015, 11, 1566–1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Endl, E.; Gerdes, J. The Ki-67 Protein: Fascinating Forms and an Unknown Function. Exp. Cell Res. 2000, 257, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Remnant, L.; Kochanova, N.Y.; Reid, C.; Cisneros-Soberanis, F.; Earnshaw, W.C. The Intrinsically Disorderly Story of Ki-67. Open Biol. 2021, 11, 210120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Anneroth, G.; Hansen, L.S. A Methodologic Study of Histologic Classification and Grading of Malignancy in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 1984, 92, 448–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Damasceno, K.A.; Ferreira, E.N.; Lima, A.E.; Bosco, Y.; Silva, L.P.; Barros, A.L.B.; Bertagnolli, A.C.; Cassali, G.D. Relationship between the Expression of Versican and EGFR, HER-2, HER-3 and CD44 in Matrix-Producing Tumours in the Canine Mammary Gland. Histol. Histopathol. 2016, 31, 675–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Yang, N.-Y.; Zheng, H.-H.; Yu, C.; Ye, Y.; Du, C.-T.; Xie, G.-H. Research Progress of Good Markers for Canine Mammary Carcinoma. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2023, 50, 10617–10625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Millanta, F.; Asproni, P.; Canale, A.; Citi, S.; Poli, A. COX-2, mPGES-1 and EP2 Receptor Immunohistochemical Expression in Canine and Feline Malignant Mammary Tumours. Vet. Comp. Oncol. 2016, 14, 270–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Ishino, H.; Hara, Y.; Takekoshi, S.; Teshima, T.; Teramoto, A.; Osamura, R.Y.; Tagawa, M. Ki-67 and Minichromosome Maintenance-7 (MCM7) Expression in Canine Pituitary Corticotroph Adenomas. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 2011, 41, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ch’ng, S.; Low, I.; Ng, D.; Brasch, H.; Sullivan, M.; Davis, P.; Tan, S.T. Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor: A Novel Biomarker for Aggressive Head and Neck Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Hum. Pathol. 2008, 39, 344–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pires, I.; Alves, A.; Queiroga, F.L.; Silva, F.; Lopes, C. Regression of Canine Cutaneous Histiocytoma: Reduced Proliferation or Increased Apoptosis? Anticancer. Res. 2013, 33, 1397–1400. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  53. Queiroga, F.L.; Pires, I.; Lobo, L.; Lopes, C.S. The Role of Cox-2 Expression in the Prognosis of Dogs with Malignant Mammary Tumours. Res. Vet. Sci. 2010, 88, 441–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Martínez, C.M.; Peñafiel-Verdú, C.; Vilafranca, M.; Ramírez, G.; Méndez-Gallego, M.; Buendía, A.J.; Sánchez, J. Cyclooxygenase-2 Expression Is Related With Localization, Proliferation, and Overall Survival in Canine Melanocytic Neoplasms. Vet. Pathol. 2011, 48, 1204–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Mehta, D.; Uber, R.; Ingle, T.; Li, C.; Liu, Z.; Thakkar, S.; Ning, B.; Wu, L.; Yang, J.; Harris, S.; et al. Study of Pharmacogenomic Information in FDA-Approved Drug Labeling to Facilitate Application of Precision Medicine. Drug Discov. Today 2020, 25, 813–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fraser, A.R.; Bacci, B.; Le Chevoir, M.A.; Long, S.N. Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor and Ki-67 Expression in Canine Gliomas. Vet. Pathol. 2016, 53, 1131–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Veloso, E.S.; Gonçalves, I.N.N.; Arantes, J.A.; De Abreu, R.V.S.; Cassali, G.D.; Ferreira, E. Quantification of EGFR Family in Canine Mammary Ductal Carcinomas in Situ: Implications on the Histological Graduation. Vet. Res. Commun. 2019, 43, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sanz Ressel, B.L.; Massone, A.R.; Barbeito, C.G. Dysregulated Expression of Phosphorylated Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor and Phosphatase and Tensin Homologue in Canine Cutaneous Papillomas and Squamous Cell Carcinomas. J. Comp. Pathol. 2020, 174, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Cañueto, J.; Cardeñoso, E.; García, J.L.; Santos-Briz, Á.; Castellanos-Martín, A.; Fernández-López, E.; Blanco Gómez, A.; Pérez-Losada, J.; Román-Curto, C. Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Expression Is Associated with Poor Outcome in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Br. J. Dermatol. 2017, 176, 1279–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Nichita, M.M.; Giurcăneanu, C.; Mihai, M.M.; Ghigulescu, M.; Beiu, C.; Negoiţă, S.I.; Popa, L.G. The Immunoexpression of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol. 2021, 62, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Abu-Humaidan, A.H.A.; Ekblad, L.; Wennerberg, J.; Sørensen, O.E. EGFR Modulates Complement Activation in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. BMC Cancer 2020, 20, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Weiss, J.; Hayes, D.N. Classifying Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: Prognosis, Prediction and Implications for Therapy. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 2014, 14, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Yokokawa, M.; Morita, K.; Oikawa, Y.; Kayamori, K.; Sakamoto, K.; Ikeda, T.; Harada, H. Co-expression of EGFR and MET Has a Synergistic Effect on the Prognosis of Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J. Oral Pathol. Med. 2020, 49, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Doyle, H.A.; Gee, R.J.; Masters, T.D.; Gee, C.R.; Booth, C.J.; Peterson-Roth, E.; Koski, R.A.; Helfand, S.C.; Price, L.; Bascombe, D.; et al. Vaccine-Induced ErbB (EGFR/HER2)-Specific Immunity in Spontaneous Canine Cancer. Transl. Oncol. 2021, 14, 101205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Figuerêdo, S.H.; Neto, R.S.C.; Ferreira, E.; Cassali, G.D.; Estrela-Lima, A.; Damasceno, K.A. Expression of VCAN and Its Receptors in Canine Mammary Carcinomas with or without Myoepithelial Proliferation. Res. Vet. Sci. 2021, 140, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Oh, F.; Modiano, J.F.; Bachanova, V.; Vallera, D.A. Bispecific Targeting of EGFR and Urokinase Receptor (uPAR) Using Ligand-Targeted Toxins in Solid Tumors. Biomolecules 2020, 10, 956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Inoue, J.; Fujiwara, K.; Hamamoto, H.; Kobayashi, K.; Inazawa, J. Improving the Efficacy of EGFR Inhibitors by Topical Treatment of Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma with miR-634 Ointment. Mol. Ther. Oncolytics 2020, 19, 294–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Li, Y.; Yue, L.; Li, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Liang, X. Prognostic Value of Ki-67 in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis. Biosci. Rep. 2021, 41, BSR20203334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Niotis, A.; Tsiambas, E.; Fotiades, P.P.; Ragos, V. Ki-67 and Topoisomerase IIa Proliferation Markers in Colon Adenocarcinoma. J. BUON 2018, 23, 24–27. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  70. Tian, Y.; Ma, Z.; Chen, Z.; Li, M.; Wu, Z.; Hong, M.; Wang, H.; Svatek, R.; Rodriguez, R.; Wang, Z. Clinicopathological and Prognostic Value of Ki-67 Expression in Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0158891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Xie, Y.; Chen, L.; Ma, X.; Li, H.; Gu, L.; Gao, Y.; Fan, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, X. Prognostic and Clinicopathological Role of High Ki-67 Expression in Patients with Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 44281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Delgado, L.; Monteiro, L.; Silva, P.; Bousbaa, H.; Garcez, F.; Silva, J.; Brilhante-Simões, P.; Pires, I.; Prada, J. BUBR1 as a Prognostic Biomarker in Canine Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Animals 2022, 12, 3082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Alferraly, I.T.; Munir, D.; Putra, I.B.; Sembiring, R.J. Correlation of Ki-67 Expression as Tumor Cell Proliferation Activity Marker with Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Grading. Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci. 2019, 7, 3384–3386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Batinac, T.; Zamolo, G.; Coklo, M.; Hadzisejdic, I.; Stemberger, C.; Zauhar, G. Expression of Cell Cycle and Apoptosis Regulatory Proteins in Keratoacanthoma and Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Pathol.—Res. Pract. 2006, 202, 599–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Gioacchini, F.M.; Alicandri-Ciufelli, M.; Magliulo, G.; Rubini, C.; Presutti, L.; Re, M. The Clinical Relevance of Ki-67 Expression in Laryngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 2015, 272, 1569–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Dumitru, C.S.; Ceausu, A.R.; Comsa, S.; Raica, M. Loss of E-Cadherin Expression Correlates With Ki-67 in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma. In Vivo 2022, 36, 1150–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Gadbail, A.R.; Sarode, S.C.; Chaudhary, M.S.; Gondivkar, S.M.; Tekade, S.A.; Yuwanati, M.; Patil, S. Ki67 Labelling Index Predicts Clinical Outcome and Survival in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2021, 29, e20200751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Sun, X.; Kaufman, P.D. Ki-67: More than a Proliferation Marker. Chromosoma 2018, 127, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Hamilton, N.A.; Liu, T.-C.; Cavatiao, A.; Mawad, K.; Chen, L.; Strasberg, S.S.; Linehan, D.C.; Cao, D.; Hawkins, W.G. Ki-67 Predicts Disease Recurrence and Poor Prognosis in Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms. Surgery 2012, 152, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Finkelman, B.S.; Zhang, H.; Hicks, D.G.; Turner, B.M. The Evolution of Ki-67 and Breast Carcinoma: Past Observations, Present Directions, and Future Considerations. Cancers 2023, 15, 808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sato, N.; Yako, Y.; Maruyama, T.; Ishikawa, S.; Kuromiya, K.; Tokuoka, S.M.; Kita, Y.; Fujita, Y. The COX-2/PGE2 Pathway Suppresses Apical Elimination of RasV12-Transformed Cells from Epithelia. Commun. Biol. 2020, 3, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Valentina Tudor, D.; Bâldea, I.; Lupu, M.; Kacso, T.; Kutasi, E.; Hopârtean, A.; Stretea, R.; Gabriela Filip, A. COX-2 as a Potential Biomarker and Therapeutic Target in Melanoma. Cancer Biol. Med. 2020, 17, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Silveira, T.L.; Pang, L.Y.; Di Domenico, A.; Veloso, E.S.; Silva, I.L.D.; Puerto, H.L.D.; Ferreria, E.; Argyle, D.J. COX-2 Silencing in Canine Malignant Melanoma Inhibits Malignant Behaviour. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 633170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Hawkey, C.J. COX-1 and COX-2 Inhibitors. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2001, 15, 801–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Bardagí, M.; Fondevila, D.; Ferrer, L. Immunohistochemical Detection of COX-2 in Feline and Canine Actinic Keratoses and Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J. Comp. Pathol. 2012, 146, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. De Almeida, E.M.P.; Piché, C.; Sirois, J.; Doré, M. Expression of Cyclo-Oxygenase-2 in Naturally Occurring Squamous Cell Carcinomas in Dogs. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 2001, 49, 867–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Poggiani, S.D.S.C.; Hatayde, M.R.; Laufer-Amorim, R.; Werner, J. Expression of Cyclooxygenase-2 and Ki-67 in Actinic Keratosis and Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Dogs. Open J. Vet. Med. 2012, 2, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Millanta, F.; Andreani, G.; Rocchigiani, G.; Lorenzi, D.; Poli, A. Correlation Between Cyclo-Oxygenase-2 and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Expression in Canine and Feline Squamous Cell Carcinomas. J. Comp. Pathol. 2016, 154, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Karagece Yalçin, U.; Seçkın, S. The Expression of P53 and COX-2 in Basal Cell Carcinoma, Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Actinic Keratosis Cases. Turk. Patoloji Derg. 2012, 28, 119–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Amirnia, M.; Babaie-Ghazani, A.; Fakhrjou, A.; Khodaeiani, E.; Alikhah, H.; Naghavi-behzad, M.; Zarrintan, A. Immunohistochemical Study of Cyclooxygenase-2 in Skin Tumors. J. Dermatol. Treat. 2014, 25, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Koyuncuer, A. Immunohistochemical Analysis of Cyclooxygenase-2 in Non-Melanocytic Skin Cancer: Correlation With Morphological Subtype and Histologic Grade. World J. Oncol. 2014, 5, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Orehovec, S.S.; Dujmović, A.; Mijatović, D.; Mance, M.; Šarčević, B. Immunohistochemical Expression of Matrix Metalloproteinase-1 and Cyclooxygenase-2 in Cutaneous Squamous Cell and Basal Cell Carcinoma. Acta Dermatovenerol. Croat. 2021, 291, 8–20. [Google Scholar]
  93. Ciortea, C.D.; Jung, I.; Gurzu, S.; Kövecsi, A.; Turdean, S.G.; Bara, T. Correlation of Angiogenesis with Other Immunohistochemical Markers in Cutaneous Basal and Squamous Cell Carcinomas. Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol. 2015, 56, 665–670. [Google Scholar]
  94. Jang, T.J. Epithelial to Mesenchymal Transition in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Is Correlated with COX-2 Expression but Not with the Presence of Stromal Macrophages or CD10-Expressing Cells. Virchows Arch. 2012, 460, 481–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kim, Y.B.; Kim, G.E.; Cho, N.H.; Pyo, H.R.; Shim, S.J.; Chang, S.K.; Park, H.C.; Suh, C.O.; Park, T.K.; Kim, B.S. Overexpression of Cyclooxygenase-2 Is Associated with a Poor Prognosis in Patients with Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Uterine Cervix Treated with Radiation and Concurrent Chemotherapy. Cancer 2002, 95, 531–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Eto, S.; Shinada, M.; Saeki, K.; Tsuboi, M.; Kamoto, S.; Yoshitake, R.; Chambers, J.; Uchida, K.; Kato, D.; Nishimura, R.; et al. Pan-Tumour Analysis of COX-2 Expression in Dogs. Vet. J. 2024, 304, 106064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Harris, R.E. Cyclooxygenase-2 (Cox-2) Blockade in the Chemoprevention of Cancers of the Colon, Breast, Prostate, and Lung. Inflammopharmacology 2009, 17, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Gao, L.; Wang, T.H.; Chen, C.P.; Xiang, J.J.; Zhao, X.B.; Gui, R.Y.; Liao, X.H. Targeting COX-2 Potently Inhibits Proliferation of Cancer Cells in Vivo but Not in Vitro in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Transl. Cancer Res. 2021, 10, 2219–2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Corchado-Cobos, R.; García-Sancha, N.; González-Sarmiento, R.; Pérez-Losada, J.; Cañueto, J. Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: From Biology to Therapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kuźbicki, Ł.; Brożyna, A.A. Expression of Cyclooxygenase-2 in Human Epithelial Skin Lesions: A Systematic Review of Immunohistochemical Studies. Appl. Immunohistochem. Mol. Morphol. 2021, 29, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Cunha, R.M.d.C.; dos Santos Horta, R.; Lavalle, G.E.; Araújo, R.B. Cyclooxygenase-2 Expression in Epithelial Neoplasms and Its Relevance as a Targeted Therapy in Dogs. Cienc. Rural 2016, 46, 1050–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Nardi, A.B.; Raposo, T.M.M.; Huppes, R.R.; Daleck, C.R.; Amorim, R.L. COX-2 Inhibitors for Cancer Treatment in Dogs. Pak. Vet. J. 2011, 31, 275–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kaszak, I.; Ruszczak, A.; Kanafa, S.; Kacprzak, K.; Król, M.; Jurka, P. Current Biomarkers of Canine Mammary Tumors. Acta Vet. Scand. 2018, 60, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Rawat, C.; Kukal, S.; Dahiya, U.R.; Kukreti, R. Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) Inhibitors: Future Therapeutic Strategies for Epilepsy Management. J. Neuroinflammation 2019, 16, 197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Jaros, E.; Perry, R.; Adam, L.; Kelly, P.; Crawford, P.; Kalbag, R.; Mendelow, A.; Sengupta, R.; Pearson, A. Prognostic Implications of P53 Protein, Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor, and Ki-67 Labelling in Brain Tumours. Br. J. Cancer 1992, 66, 373–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Meert, A.P.; Martin, B.; Verdebout, J.M.; Feoli, F.; Mascaux, C.; Ninane, V.; Sculier, J.P. EGFR, c-erbB-2 and Ki-67 in NSCLC and Preneoplastic Bronchial Lesions. Anticancer Res. 2006, 26, 135–138. [Google Scholar]
  107. Sakuma, K.; Fujimori, T.; Hirabayashi, K.; Terano, A. Cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 Immunoreactivity and Relationship to P53 and Ki-67 Expression in Colorectal Cancer. J. Gastroenterol. 1999, 34, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Escobar, E.; Gómez-Valenzuela, F.; Peñafiel, C.; Hormazábal-Hevia, A.; Herrera-Fuentes, C.; Mori-Aliaga, D. Immunohistochemical Expression of COX-2, Ki-67, Bcl-2, Bax, VEGF and CD105 According to Histological Grading in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Rev. Española De Patol. 2023, 56, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Rodrigues, P.; Bangali, H.; Hammoud, A.; Mustafa, Y.F.; Al-Hetty, H.R.A.K.; Alkhafaji, A.T.; Deorari, M.M.; Al-Taee, M.M.; Zabibah, R.S.; Alsalamy, A. COX 2-Inhibitors; a Thorough and Updated Survey into Combinational Therapies in Cancers. Med. Oncol. 2024, 41, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Li, S.; Jiang, M.; Wang, L.; Yu, S. Combined Chemotherapy with Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) Inhibitors in Treating Human Cancers: Recent Advancement. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2020, 129, 110389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Sandler, A.B.; Dubinett, S.M. COX-2 Inhibition and Lung Cancer. Semin. Oncol. 2004, 31, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Jalili, A.; Pinc, A.; Pieczkowski, F.; Karlhofer, F.M.; Stingl, G.; Wagner, S.N. Combination of an EGFR Blocker and a COX-2 Inhibitor for the Treatment of Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. JDDG J. Der Dtsch. Dermatol. Ges. 2008, 6, 1066–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cimb 46 00297 g001
Figure 1. EGFR immunoexpression in tumors with different histological grades of malignancy: (A) low score in well-differentiated tumors (Grade I), (100×) and (B) EGFR overexpression in poorly differentiated tumors (Grade II), (40×).
Figure 1. EGFR immunoexpression in tumors with different histological grades of malignancy: (A) low score in well-differentiated tumors (Grade I), (100×) and (B) EGFR overexpression in poorly differentiated tumors (Grade II), (40×).
Cimb 46 00297 g001
Cimb 46 00297 g002
Figure 2. EGFR immunoexpression in tumors with different histological grades of malignancy.
Figure 2. EGFR immunoexpression in tumors with different histological grades of malignancy.
Cimb 46 00297 g002
Cimb 46 00297 g003
Figure 3. Ki-67 immunoexpression in tumors with different histological grades of malignancy: (A) low score in well-differentiated tumors (Grade I), (200×) and (B) high score in moderately differentiated tumors (Grade III), (400×).
Figure 3. Ki-67 immunoexpression in tumors with different histological grades of malignancy: (A) low score in well-differentiated tumors (Grade I), (200×) and (B) high score in moderately differentiated tumors (Grade III), (400×).
Cimb 46 00297 g003
Cimb 46 00297 g004
Figure 4. Ki-67 immunoexpression in tumors with different histological grades of malignancy.
Figure 4. Ki-67 immunoexpression in tumors with different histological grades of malignancy.
Cimb 46 00297 g004
Cimb 46 00297 g005
Figure 5. Cox-2 immunoexpression in tumors with different histological grades of malignancy: (A) low score in well-differentiated tumors (Grade I), (100×) and (B) high score in poorly differentiated tumors (Grade II), (200×).
Figure 5. Cox-2 immunoexpression in tumors with different histological grades of malignancy: (A) low score in well-differentiated tumors (Grade I), (100×) and (B) high score in poorly differentiated tumors (Grade II), (200×).
Cimb 46 00297 g005
Cimb 46 00297 g006
Figure 6. Cox-2 immunoexpression in tumors with different histological grades of malignancy.
Figure 6. Cox-2 immunoexpression in tumors with different histological grades of malignancy.
Cimb 46 00297 g006
Table 1. Classification of histopathological features [46].
Table 1. Classification of histopathological features [46].
ParameterDescriptionGrade IGrade IIGrade III
Keratinization/DifferentiationThe proportion of tumor cells exhibiting keratinization>50% keratinized cells20–50% keratinized cells0–20% keratinized cells
Nuclear PleomorphismMaturity of cellsMinimal; >75% mature cellsModerate; 50–75% mature cellsMarked nuclear pleomorphism
Mitotic CountMitoses per ten high-power fields (HPF)0 to 1 mitosis/HPF2 to 3 mitoses/HPF≥4 mitoses/HPF
Invasion PatternThe pattern of tumor invasionWell-defined with pushing bordersInfiltration by solid cords, bands, and strandsInfiltration by small groups, strands, or individual cells
Invasion StageThe extent of tumor invasionCarcinoma in situ or questionable invasionApparent invasion limited to the lamina propriaInvasion beyond the lamina propria involving muscle
Lymphoplasmacytic InfiltrationLevel of lymphoplasmacytic infiltrationMarkedModerateMild to absent
Table 2. Analyzed data on histological characteristics.
Table 2. Analyzed data on histological characteristics.
Histological CharacteristicClassificationn%
UlcerationAbsent410.8%
Present3389.2%
NecrosisAbsent12.7%
Present3697.3%
EmboliAbsent3081.1%
Present718.9%
Histological grade of malignancyI1027.03%
II1540.54%
III1232.43%
Total37100%
Table 3. Information regarding each animal’s clinical evaluations and histopathological examinations.
Table 3. Information regarding each animal’s clinical evaluations and histopathological examinations.
Case NumberBreedGenderAgeUlcerationNecrosisGradeEmbolusEGFRKi-67Cox-2
1Indeterminatefemale101131111
2Boxer male 81120101
3Indeterminatefemale111110011
4Portuguese Pointermale111120101
5Golden Retrievermale91131112
6Dalmatianfemale71130011
7Dobermanfemale61120112
8Estrela Mountain Dogfemale41131112
9Basset Houndfemale141120012
10Labrador Retrieverfemale71120112
11West Highland Terriermale91120001
12Dalmatianmale40010001
13Portuguese Cattle Dogmale91120111
14Dalmatianmale11131112
15Podengomale111130102
16Settermale91120001
17Indeterminatefemale81130012
18Boxer male81130012
19Shar Peifemale101131112
20Boxermale71120001
21Pitbullmale90131112
22Indeterminatefemale171120111
23Giant Schnauzer male71131112
24Boxermale101110001
25Boxer male90110002
26Cocker Spanielfemale101110001
27Poodlefemale121110001
28Boxer female 81120112
29German Shepherdmale21120112
30Boxer female91110001
31Poodlefemale101110001
32Pekingesefemale61120011
33Scent houndfemale71110001
34Boxer female 71120001
35Bichonmale90110001
36Poodlefemale111120001
37Partridgefemale71130002
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Luís, J.M.; Files, R.; Cardoso, C.; Pimenta, J.; Maia, G.; Silva, F.; Queiroga, F.L.; Prada, J.; Pires, I. Immunohistochemical Expression Levels of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor, Cyclooxygenase-2, and Ki-67 in Canine Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinomas. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2024, 46, 4951-4967. https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb46050297

AMA Style

Luís JM, Files R, Cardoso C, Pimenta J, Maia G, Silva F, Queiroga FL, Prada J, Pires I. Immunohistochemical Expression Levels of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor, Cyclooxygenase-2, and Ki-67 in Canine Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinomas. Current Issues in Molecular Biology. 2024; 46(5):4951-4967. https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb46050297

Chicago/Turabian Style

Luís, João Miguel, Rita Files, Cláudia Cardoso, José Pimenta, Gabriela Maia, Filipe Silva, Felisbina L. Queiroga, Justina Prada, and Isabel Pires. 2024. "Immunohistochemical Expression Levels of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor, Cyclooxygenase-2, and Ki-67 in Canine Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinomas" Current Issues in Molecular Biology 46, no. 5: 4951-4967. https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb46050297

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop