BackgroundThe pathologic distinction between high-grade prostate adenocarcinoma (PAC) involving the urinary bladder and high-grade urothelial carcinoma (UC) infiltrating the prostate can be difficult. However, making this distinction is clinically important because of the different treatment modalities for these two entities. MethodsA total of 249 patient cases (PAC, 111 cases; UC, 138 cases) collected between June 1995 and July 2009 at Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital were studied. An immunohistochemical evaluation of prostatic markers (prostate-specific antigen [PSA], prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA], prostate acid phosphatase [PAP], P501s, NKX3.1, and α-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase [AMACR]) and urothelial markers (CK34βE12, p63, thrombomodulin, S100P, and GATA binding protein 3 [GATA3]) was performed using tissue microarrays from each tumor. ResultsThe sensitivities of prostatic markers in PAC were 100% for PSA, 83.8% for PSMA, 91.9% for PAP, 93.7% for P501s, 88.3% for NKX 3.1, and 66.7% for AMACR. However, the urothelial markers CK34βE12, p63, thrombomodulin, S100P, and GATA3 were also positive in 1.8%, 0%, 0%, 3.6%, and 0% of PAC, respectively. The sensitivities of urothelial markers in UC were 75.4% for CK34βE12, 73.9% for p63, 45.7% for thrombomodulin, 22.5% for S100P, and 84.8% for GATA3. Conversely, the prostatic markers PSA, PSMA, PAP, P501s, NKX3.1, and AMACR were also positive in 9.4%, 0.7%, 18.8%, 0.7%, 0%, and 8.7% of UCs, respectively.ConclusionsProstatic and urothelial markers, including PSA, NKX3.1, p63, thrombomodulin, and GATA3 are very useful for differentiating PAC from UC. The optimal combination of prostatic and urothelial markers could improve the ability to differentiate PAC from UC pathologically.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundMutations in the KRAS gene have been identified in approximately 50% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). KRAS mutations are well established biomarkers in anti–epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. Therefore, assessment of KRAS mutations is needed in CRC patients to ensure appropriate treatment.MethodsWe compared the analytical performance of the cobas test to Sanger sequencing in 264 CRC cases. In addition, discordant specimens were evaluated by 454 pyrosequencing.ResultsKRAS mutations for codons 12/13 were detected in 43.2% of cases (114/264) by Sanger sequencing. Of 257 evaluable specimens for comparison, KRAS mutations were detected in 112 cases (43.6%) by Sanger sequencing and 118 cases (45.9%) by the cobas test. Concordance between the cobas test and Sanger sequencing for each lot was 93.8% positive percent agreement (PPA) and 91.0% negative percent agreement (NPA) for codons 12/13. Results from the cobas test and Sanger sequencing were discordant for 20 cases (7.8%). Twenty discrepant cases were subsequently subjected to 454 pyrosequencing. After comprehensive analysis of the results from combined Sanger sequencing–454 pyrosequencing and the cobas test, PPA was 97.5% and NPA was 100%.ConclusionsThe cobas test is an accurate and sensitive test for detecting KRAS-activating mutations and has analytical power equivalent to Sanger sequencing. Prescreening using the cobas test with subsequent application of Sanger sequencing is the best strategy for routine detection of KRAS mutations in CRC.