Background: When clinical and histopathological evaluation is not effective in discriminating primary endocervical adenocarcinoma (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinoma (EMAs), an immunohistochemistry (IHC) method is regularly used in practice, which involves staining of estrogen receptor (ER), vimentin (Vim), monoclonal carcinoembryonic antigen (mCEA) and p16.
Objective: To evaluate the performance of IHC markers, ER, Vim, mCEA and p16, in differentiating between primary ECAs and EMAs and to compare the performances of two-, three- and four-marker panels.
Material And Method: Women with cervical or uterine cancers who were diagnosed with mucinous or endometrioid adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of non-otherwise specified, after cervical biopsy, endometrial biopsy or curettage, and who underwent elective surgery at Rajavithi Hospital between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Paraffin-embedded tissue sections from pre-operative specimens were reviewed and stained with ER, Vim, mCEA and p16. Postoperative pathologic slides was reviewed and installed as the reference standard.
Results: Of 110 cases, 44 were primary ECAs and 66 were primary EMAs. ER and Vim were significantly expressed in EMAs (p < 0.001), while mCEA and p16 were significantly expressed in ECAs (p < 0.001). From multivariable analysis, Vim and p16 were the significant markers for differentiating ECAs and EMAs. A comparison of different combinations showed that panels of Vim/p16, ER/Vim/p16, Vim/mCEA/p16 and ER/Vim/mCEA/p16 achieved the highest overall accuracy of97.9%.
Conclusion: Vim and p16 are the significant IHC markers and a two-marker panel of Vim/p16 is recommended for using in differentiating primary ECAs and EMAs; which a pattern of negative Vim and positive p16 expression favors diagnosis of ECAs while the converse pattern of positive Vim and negative p16 staining points to diagnosis of EMAs.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|
Background: When clinical and histopathological evaluation is not effective in discriminating primary endocervical adenocarcinoma (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinoma (EMAs), an immunohistochemistry (IHC) method is regularly used in practice, which involves staining of estrogen receptor (ER), vimentin (Vim), monoclonal carcinoembryonic antigen (mCEA) and p16.
Objective: To evaluate the performance of IHC markers, ER, Vim, mCEA and p16, in differentiating between primary ECAs and EMAs and to compare the performances of two-, three- and four-marker panels.
Material And Method: Women with cervical or uterine cancers who were diagnosed with mucinous or endometrioid adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of non-otherwise specified, after cervical biopsy, endometrial biopsy or curettage, and who underwent elective surgery at Rajavithi Hospital between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012 were retrospectively reviewed.
Int J Gynecol Pathol
January 2012
Department of Pathology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, University of Toronto, ON, Canada.
Undifferentiated carcinoma of the endometrium is a rare neoplasm, which, when involving the cervix, raises a question about its origin. Diffuse p16 positivity of uterine cancers is usually interpreted as a surrogate marker for high-risk human papilloma virus and favors cervical origin. In this study, we investigated the expression of cytokeratin 7 (CK7), monoclonal carcinoembryonic antigen (mCEA), estrogen receptor (ER), vimentin, and p16 in 28 cases of undifferentiated endometrial carcinoma, 20 high-grade endometrioid adenocarcinomas, and 50 cervical adenocarcinomas.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFMod Pathol
August 2006
Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021, USA.
Many endometrial adenocarcinomas, particularly those of endometrioid type, express estrogen receptors (ERs), progesterone receptors (PRs), and vimentin. This typical immunophenotype is frequently considered a standard against which others are compared when immunohistochemistry is used for differential diagnosis. We tested large numbers of endometrial cancers, enriched for high-grade tumors, to determine whether this reported immunophenotype was valid and whether expression differences between types of endometrial carcinoma could be exploited for diagnostic purposes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!