Otolaryngology–
Head and Neck Surgery
June 2000
840 DELORGE et al
gand for galectins has been carried out so far, common-
ly assaying panels of carbohydrates in inhibition assays,
a discussion is precluded on the actual potency of the T
antigen as a binding partner for galectins. However, the
LI parameter correlations suggest an interaction at the
galectin-3 level.
Checkerboard correlations enable us to discuss fur-
ther relationships. Although no T-antigen-binding site-
positive cells and only a limited percentage of T-anti-
gen-positive ones were correlated with the percentage
of calcyclin-positive cells, both the T-antigen and T-
antigen-binding site concentrations correlated markedly
(P < 0.00001 and P = 0.00006, respectively) and posi-
tively with the calcyclin concentration. Unless this cor-
relation is fortuitous, regulatory mechanisms linking the
two marker classes can be tentatively suggested on the
basis of this result.
intriguing implication to link the detection of the T anti-
gen functionally to that of certain galectins, at least in
part. This result has relevance for lectin-histochemical
studies on this new class.
It should be emphasized that although our data clearly
demonstrate the intergroup correlation between the
molecular markers that we used and the tumor differen-
tiation status, there is a substantial overlap between
individual patients. Additional markers are therefore
needed to allow pathologists to use these markers to
provide prognostic information on an individual basis.
The characterization of the levels of expression of new
galectins (including galectin-9) and S-100 proteins
(including S-100A1, S-100A2, S-100A3, S-100A4, S-
100A5, and S-100B) is under way in our laboratory.
CONCLUSION
Although initially detected as a growth factor–
inducible gene product of quiescent fibroblasts, calcy-
clin can evidently exert other functions besides playing
a part in cell cycle progression.30,40,41 It has recently
been reported that its RNA gene expression can be evi-
denced in HNSCCs, but not in benign lesions.42 These
data clearly reveal the expression of this protein.
However, they show that the loss in HNSCC differenti-
ation level is paralleled by a significant decrease in cal-
cyclin expression.
The data from this study reveal that modifications in
the level of HNSCC differentiation—a prognosis-relat-
ed feature—are accompanied by changes in the extent
of galectin expression, of their accessible binding sites,
and of calcyclin.
We thank Dr J. L. Wang for his kind gift of the expression
vector for murine galectin-3.
REFERENCES
With respect to galectins, the loss of HNSCC differ-
entiation is linked, at least phenomenologically, to
galectin-3 expression. Although malignant thyroid tis-
sue exhibits high levels of both galectin-1 and galectin-3,
normal and even benign tissue does not express these
markers.25,43 Schoeppner et al24 observed that galectin-
3 expression in invasive colon cancers varies according
to Dukes’ stage, thereby indicating a linear relationship
with advancing stage. Enhanced galectin-3 expression
correlates with a decrease in long-term patient survival,
and metastases express a higher level of galectin-3 in
comparison with the primary cancers from which they
evolve.24 In sharp contrast, however, Castronovo et al44
observed that galectin-3 is downregulated in breast can-
cer and that this decreased expression is associated with
the acquisition of an invasive and metastatic phenotype.
Our data show that the loss of phenotypical differen-
tiation in HNSCCs, which is known to be of prognostic
value, can be translated at biochemical level not only
into modifications in the expression of the T-antigen/T-
antigen-binding sites but also into modifications in
galectin expression. If the coexpression patterns between
certain probes are recalled (Table 1), it can be inferred
that galectin-3 may be an acceptor site for the T antigen.
Indeed, colon cancer mucins have been evidenced as
displaying reactivity to galectin-3.43 It is thus an
1. Khuri FR, Lippman SM, Spitz MR, et al. Molecular epidemiolo-
gy and retinoid chemoprevention of head and neck cancer. J Natl
Cancer Inst 1997;89:199-211.
2. Batsakis JG, Rice DH, Solomon AR. The pathology of head and
neck tumors: squamous and mucous-gland carcinomas of the
nasal cavity, paranasal sinuses, and larynx. Part 6. Head Neck
Surg 1980;2:497-508.
3. Urist MM, O’Brien CJ, Soong SJ, et al. Squamous cell carcino-
ma of the buccal mucosa: analysis of prognostic factors. Am J
Surg 1987;154:411-4.
4. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Manual for staging of can-
cer. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1988. p. 217.
5. Roland NJ, Caslin AW, Nasch J, et al. Value of grading squamous
cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Head Neck 1992;14:224-
229.
6. Hall SF, Groome PA, Dixon PF. Does N stage predict survival? J
Otolaryngol 1996;25:296-99.
7. Janot F, Klijanienko J, Russo A, et al. Prognostic value of clini-
copathological parameters in head and neck squamous cell carci-
noma: a prospective analysis. Br J Cancer 1996;73:531-8.
8. Schantz SP, Harrison LB, Forastiere AA. Tumors of the nasal
cavity and paranasal sinuses, nasopharynx, oral cavity, and
oropharynx. In: DeVita VT Jr, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, editors.
Cancer: principles and practice of oncology. Vol 1. 5th ed.
Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1997. p. 741-847.
9. Harbo G, Grau C, Bundgaard T, et al. Cancer of the nasal cavity
and paranasal sinuses. A clinico-pathological study of 277
patients. Acta Oncol 1997;36:45-50.
10. Klijanienko J, El-Naggar AK, De Braud F, et al. Tumor vascular-
ization, mitotic index, histopathologic grade, and DNA ploidy in
the assessment of 114 head and neck squamous cell carcinomas.
Cancer 1995;75:1649-56.
11. Martinez-Gimeno C, Rodriguez EM, Vila CN, et al. Squamous
cell carcinoma of the oral cavity: a clinicopathologic scoring sys-