HepPar1, MOC-31, pCEA, mCEA and CD10 for Distinguishing Hepatocellular Carcinoma vs. Metastatic Adenocarcinoma in Liver Fine Needle Aspirates

HepPar1-Positive Circulating Microparticles are Increased in Subjects with Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Predict Early Recurrence after Liver Resection

“…These data are important, since they indicate that circulating HepPar1+ MPs are tumor-specific and may have the potentials to serve as biomarkers for the diagnosis of HCC. This is consistent with the fact that HepPar is an antigen used for the staining of HCC [19], that HepPar1+ MPs have already been associated with tumor size in patients affected by HCC [26], and that HepPar1+ MPs decrease after HCC removal by the means of liver transplantation [26].…”

“…Among patients who presented recurrence, 4 had liver cirrhosis (HCV-related in 2 cases, steatohepatitic in one case and alcohol-related in the remaining one), 2 were affected by nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, and 1 had healthy liver. In the eight patients who did not display recurrence, the median follow-up was 21 months (range [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. The only significant difference found between subjects with and without recurrence was age displayed recurrence, compared to those who remained cancer-free during follow-up (p=0.02) ( Table 4 and Fig.…”

“…While once considered just inert remnants of cellular processes, MPs are now recognized as important players in many physiological and pathological conditions, due to the fact that they act as cargos for nucleic acids and proteins and have the ability to translate functionally important biological information between cells. In the last few years, increasing attention has been paid the possible use of circulating MPs as novel biomarkers of disease, also in the field of hepatology [18][19][20][21][22][23].…”

Intratumoral sampling variability in hepatocellular carcinoma: A case report

“…The current literature shows that difficulties in histological typing of liver tumors, particularly in the differential diagnosis between HCC and CC and metastases can be minimized by using immunohistochemistry [4,6] . Among the numerous diagnostic immunohistochemical markers studied, alphafetoprotein (AFP) [7] , CK7 [8] , CK20 [9] , CK19 [10] , hepatocyte paraffin 1 (Hep Par 1) [11,12] and glypican 3 (GPC3) [3,5,13] have been found to be valuable in the diagnosis of HCC. The sensitivity and specificity of the monoclonal antibody Hep Par 1 for HCC are considered ver y high; as a consequence, the usefulness of this marker in the differential diagnosis of hepatic tumors is widely accepted [14,15] , although it stains normal hepatocytes as well.…”

The Histomorphological and Immunohistochemical Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

“…It also sometimes reacts with other normal or pathological structure, such as renal tubules and intestinal epithelium as well as with intestinal metaplasia in the stomach and esophagus (Goodman ZD, 2007). It produces positive staining in the vast majority of cases of hepatocellularr carcinoma (Saad RS, 2004) (Siddiqui MT, 2002) and only a small percentage of other tumors, including some cholangiocarcinomas and metastatic adenocarcinomas from the stomach and other sites (Terracciano LM, 2003), but when used in the context of morphology, clinical setting and other stains, HepPar-1 is very useful in distinguishing hepatocelluar carcinoma from other malignancies (Wang L, 2006). The scientific literature reported cases of hepatocellular carcinoma negative for HepPar-1 (Sugiki T, 2004), probably due to the uneven distribution of HepPar-1 in hepatocellular carcinoma, as reported by our group (Senes G, 2007).…”