Untitled

良樹, 宮地; 貞夫, 今村; 学而, 大塩; 忠夫, 真辺; 啓吾, 遠藤; 寛之, 工藤

doi:10.5227/skincancer.3.191

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2,3 However, differentiating porocarcinoma from SCC is clinically significant because porocarcinomas have a greater tendency of developing lymph node metastases and are associated with poor survivability. 4,5 To date, a variety of immunohistochemical markers, including cytokeratin 7, 2,6,7 cytokeratin 15, 2,8–10 cytokeratin 19, 2,9,10 cytokeratin 5/6, 7,11 CAM5.2, 2,12–14 carcinoembryonic antigen, 2,4,6,14 CA19-9, 15–17 epithelial membrane antigen, 1,6,14 nestin, 2,8,10 and p63, 8,13 have been used in the differential diagnosis of porocarcinoma and SCC. However, these markers demonstrate some degree of overlapping staining in both the tumor types.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Immunohistochemical Expression of Cytokeratin 19, c-KIT, BerEP4, GATA3, and NUTM1 Between Porocarcinoma and Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Goto

Ishikawa²,

Hamada

et al. 2021

The American Journal of Dermatopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distinguishing porocarcinoma from squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is clinically significant; however, differential diagnosis can often be challenging. This study sought to confirm the diagnostic utility of cytokeratin 19, c-KIT, BerEP4, GATA3, and NUTM1 immunohistochemistry in distinguishing porocarcinoma from SCC. Immunohistochemical analysis of cytokeratin 19, c-KIT, BerEP4, GATA3, and NUTM1 in 14 porocarcinomas and 22 SCCs was performed; the extents and intensities of expression of these markers were recorded. The statistical associations of the immunoexpression between porocarcinoma and SCC were analyzed using the Pearson x 2 test. Cytokeratin 19 was positive in 13 (92.9%) of 14 porocarcinomas, and for all the positive cases, staining was strong and evident in .20% of the tumor cells. By contrast, 9 (40.9%) of 22 SCCs expressed cytokeratin 19 (P = 0.0018), of which 6 showed extremely focal (#10% of the tumor cells) expression. Of the 14 porocarcinomas, 11 (78.6%) cases showed c-KIT positivity, whereas only 3 of 22 SCCs (13.6%) expressed c-KIT focally (P = 0.0001). In addition, BerEP4 immunostaining differed between porocarcinomas and SCCs (57.1% vs. 9.1%, respectively; P = 0.0017). However, no significant difference between the groups was reported in terms of GATA3 expression (57.1% vs. 72.7%, respectively; P = 0.3336). NUTM1 was expressed in 4/14 (28.6%) porocarcinomas but not in the SCCs. Immunohistochemistry for cytokeratin 19, c-KIT, and BerEP4 could be helpful in distinguishing porocarcinomas from SCCs. In addition, NUTM1 immunoexpression is highly specific, although not sensitive, to porocarcinomas. GATA3 immunohistochemistry has no meaningful implications in the differential diagnosis of porocarcinoma and SCC.

show abstract