Immunohistochemistry contribution to the diagnosis of prostate cancer

Engelman, Miriam de Fátima Brasil; Mundim, Fiorita Gonzáles Lopes; Grande, Rogério Mendes; Carvalho, Lucas Ribeiro Borges de; Ridolfi, Felipe

doi:10.1590/s1676-24442012000400008

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Major diagnostic criteria are infiltrative pattern of glandular growth, absence of basal cells, and nuclear atypia like nucleomegaly. In addition, some minor criteria include intraluminal mucin that is wispy and blue, amorphous pink secretion, mitoses, intraluminal crystalloids, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia of high grade in the adjacent area, amphophilic cytoplasm, and hyperchromatic nuclei ( 8 ). Immunohistochemical examination is an important ancillary method in the diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma, especially in prostatic needle biopsies that contain atypical glandular proliferation of limited amounts ( 9 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Value of Cytokeratin 34 beta E12 (Ck34βE12) and α-Methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) Immunohistochemical Expression in Prostatic Lesions

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scan to discover online Background & Objective: Some prostatic lesions contain small suspicious foci for prostatic carcinoma in which the morphological features are equivocal. Two immunohistochemical markers namely, cytokeratin 34 beta E12 (Ck34βE12) and α-Methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR), were evaluated in these lesions for a definitive diagnosis and avoiding misdiagnosis or overdiagnosis of prostatic carcinoma. Methods: A total of 90 paraffin embedded blocks of prostatic tissue were selected and categorized into three groups as follows: 50 cases of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), 20 cases of prostatic carcinoma, and 20 cases of benign prostatic lesions with suspicious foci labeled as ASAP (atypical small acinar proliferation) that occupy not more than 5% of the lesion. These cases were revised for histopathological diagnosis and stained with two immunohistochemical markers: Ck34βE12 and AMACR. Results: While 92.9% of BPH were positive for Ck34βE12, 96% of prostatic carcinoma were negative for this marker (P=0.0001). Regarding AMACR, 92.9% of BPH cases were negative, but 92% of prostatic carcinoma cases were positive for this marker (P=0.0001). Out of 20 cases of BPH, 15 cases containing suspicious foci showed Ck34βE12+/AMACR-(diagnosis: benign), but 5 cases were Ck34βE12-/AMACR+, for which the diagnosis changed to prostatic carcinoma (P=0.04). Conclusion: Immunohistochemical staining with Ck34βE12 and AMACR improved the diagnostic performance and increased confidence level for establishing definite diagnosis in cases with suspicious foci, in which the morphological features were equivocal. This could help to avoid misdiagnosis or overdiagnosis of prostatic carcinoma that would eventually improve the management of the patient and subsequently the prognosis.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Value of Cytokeratin 34 beta E12 (Ck34βE12) and α-Methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) Immunohistochemical Expression in Prostatic Lesions

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of Basal-Cell Specific Markers – P63 and 34betae12 in Prostatic Glandular Proliferations

Akoijam

Kumar

Khuraijam

et al. 2021

Global Journal for Research Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The prostate is a retroperitoneal organ encircling the neck of the bladder and urethra. Though the diagnosis of the prostatic lesions are analyzed through histopathological examination (HPE), sometimes, diagnosis can be challenging, when pathologist are faced with certain problems such as small foci of Ca or benign mimickers. In such situation, immunohistochemical (IHC) detection of basal cells are widely used. To Objectives: assess the expression of basal cell markers (p63 and 34betaE12) in various prostatic glandular proliferations and to differentiate suspicious glandular lesions as benign or malignant. A two year cross-sectional s Methods: tudy (Sept'2016 –Aug'2018) , total of 52 cases of both TURP and prostate biopsy specimens sent to the department of Pathology, RIMS for HPE were studied using IHC markers p63 and 34betaE12, following H&E stain and the expressions of the markers were studied. Results: Out of 52 cases, 41(78.8%) cases were diagnosed as Benign proliferative hyperplasia (BPH), 8(15.4%) cases as prostatic carcinoma, 2(3.8%) cases as high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) and one (1.9%) case of adenoleiomyobromatous hyperplasia (AMFH) on H&E section with age range of 51 to 90 years (mean age: 72 years). Following IHC staining, 43 (97.7%) benign cases were positive for both p63 and 34betaE12, one (2.3%) case of benign lesion was negative for both the IHCs. 8(100%) cases of malignant lesions were negative for both the IHCs. A p-value of 1.000 was observed indicating that there is no signicant difference in the sensitivity of p63 and 34betaE12. In this cross- Conclusion: sectional study of 52 cases of prostatic lesions, HPE and the role of basal cell specic IHC markers p63 and 34beta12 were studied. No signicant difference was observed in the sensitivity between the two markers. Further comparative study with larger sample size is needed to comprehend the differences in the utility of p63 and 34etaE12 in diagnosing suspicious prostatic lesions.

show abstract

Immunohistochemistry contribution to the diagnosis of prostate cancer

Cited by 2 publications

References 26 publications

Diagnostic Value of Cytokeratin 34 beta E12 (Ck34βE12) and α-Methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) Immunohistochemical Expression in Prostatic Lesions

Diagnostic Value of Cytokeratin 34 beta E12 (Ck34βE12) and α-Methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR) Immunohistochemical Expression in Prostatic Lesions

Comparison of Basal-Cell Specific Markers – P63 and 34betae12 in Prostatic Glandular Proliferations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About