Inclusion of MUC1 (Ma695) in a panel of immunohistochemical markers is useful for distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma*

Khoury, Thaer; Tan, Dongfeng; Wang, Jianmin; Intengan, Marilyn; Yang, Jun; Alrawi, Sadir; Yan, Peisha; Byrd, James C.

doi:10.1186/1472-6890-6-1

Cited by 23 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This optimal cut-off value for this study was determined by using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and Youden index [7,8]. This method of assessment has been widely accepted and used in previous studies [3][4][5][6][9][10][11][12][13]. To distinguish between primary ECA and EMA, the sensitivity and specificity of EC-type and EM-type immunoprofiles were compared.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas: is a 2-marker (Vim/CEA) panel enough?

Liao

Hsu

Lee³

et al. 2010

Virchows Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gynecological pathologists are used to operating many panels of various markers in combination for the diagnostic distinction between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. The conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is the most promising tool. In this study, our aim is to investigate whether a 2-marker panel is enough to distinguish between these two gynecologic malignancies. Additionally, we wish to determine which one is the most favorable among eight panels tested, including six 2-marker (ER/CEA, PR/CEA, Vim/CEA, ER/p16(INK4a), PR/p16(INK4a), Vim/p16(INK4a)) and two 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA, ER/Vim/p16(INK)) panels. A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 primary endocervical adenocarcinomas and 21 primary endometrial adenocarcinomas. Utilizing the avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method, tissue array sections were immunostained with five commercially available antibodies (ER, Vim, CEA, PR, and p16(INK4a)) to evaluate their individual frequencies of expression. We found that all eight aforementioned panels showed an encouraging range of overall accuracy (69.2% to 78.3%). However, one panel of 2-markers (Vim, CEA) exhibited the most efficiency (78.3%) in the diagnostic distinction between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. Based on the analyzed data, we conclude that the 2-marker (Vim/CEA) panel seems adequate to be an appropriate, convenient, and efficient means to distinguish between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. Even though there were a limited number of cases, this study still provides valuable references to help avoid wasting resources and unnecessary marker testing.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas: is a 2-marker (Vim/CEA) panel enough?

Liao

Hsu

Lee³

et al. 2010

Virchows Arch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A typical EC-type immunoprofile is defined as ER-/Vim-/CEA+ or ER-/Vim-/p16 INK4a +, whereas a typical EM-type immunoprofile is defined as ER+/Vim+/CEA or ER+/Vim+/p16 INK4a . A non-typical immunoprofile is defined as the three-marker expressions other than typical EC-and typical EM-type expression patterns [3,[5][6][7][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] (Tables 3, 4, and 5).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We also know that the p16 INK4a marker is currently the most important focus of attention and carries more diagnostic weight than the others. However, no single antibody is totally specific or any one neoplasm [4][5][6][7][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Herein, we have re-evaluated these two commonly used three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA and ER/ Vim/p16 INK4a ) panels to see whether they both show similar promising performance and effectiveness in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Herein, we have re-evaluated these two commonly used three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA and ER/ Vim/p16 INK4a ) panels to see whether they both show similar promising performance and effectiveness in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. ECA tends to be ER-/Vim-/CEA+ and EMA tends to be ER+/Vim+/CEA− in the first traditional three-marker (ER/ Vim/CEA) panel, whereas ECA tends to be ER-/Vim-/ p16 INK4a + and EMA tends to be ER+/Vim+/p16 INK4a − in the second three-marker (ER/Vim/p16 INK4a ) panel [3][4][5][6][7][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. In this study, we reappraised the expressional status of four individual markers (ER, Vim, CEA, and p16 INK4a ) and investigated whether p16 INK4a and CEA are mutually interchangeable between both their relevant three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA and ER/Vim/p16 INK4a ) panels in distinguishing ECA from EMA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results are expressed by dividing cases into scores of 0-3 (essentially negative) and 4-12 (at least moderately positive in at least 11-50% of cells). This method of assessment has been widely accepted and used in previous studies [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23].…”

Section: Scoring Of Immunostainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

p16INK4 and CEA can be mutually exchanged with confidence between both relevant three-marker panels (ER/Vim/CEA and ER/Vim/p16INK4) in distinguishing primary endometrial adenocarcinomas from endocervical adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The accurate distinction between primary endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) may require the use of multiple ancillary monoclonal antibodies in panels of immunohistochemistry stains. In addition to reappraising the expressions of four commonly used individual monoclonal antibodies [estrogen receptor (ER), Vimentin (Vim), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and p16(INK4)], this study was designed to investigate whether CEA and p16(INK4) can be effectively exchanged between two relevant three-marker panels (ER/Vim/CEA vs. ER/Vim/p16(INK4)) in distinguishing ECA from EMA. A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. Utilizing the avidin-biotin technique, tissue array sections were immunostained with the four aforementioned individual markers (ER, Vim, CEA, and p16(INK4)). In addition to the four individual monoclonal antibodies, both their respective three-marker panels, proposed here, showed statistically significant (p < 0.05) frequency differences between these two gynecologic tumors (ECA vs. EMA). The panel performance and test effectiveness revealed that both three-marker panels are promising and very helpful. According to our data, when histomorphological and clinical doubt exists as to the primary site of origin, we recommend using either of these two conventional three-marker panels, which consist of ER/Vim/CEA and ER/Vim/p16(INK4). CEA and p16(INK4) can be interchanged with confidence without significantly influencing the panel presentations and efficiencies in distinguishing between adenocarcinomas of endocervical and endometrial origin.

show abstract

Ancillary p16INK4a adds no meaningful value to the performance of ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study

Yao

Kok

Lee

et al. 2009

Arch Gynecol Obstet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Inclusion of MUC1 (Ma695) in a panel of immunohistochemical markers is useful for distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma*

Cited by 23 publications

References 36 publications

Distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas: is a 2-marker (Vim/CEA) panel enough?

Distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas: is a 2-marker (Vim/CEA) panel enough?

p16INK4 and CEA can be mutually exchanged with confidence between both relevant three-marker panels (ER/Vim/CEA and ER/Vim/p16INK4) in distinguishing primary endometrial adenocarcinomas from endocervical adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study

Ancillary p16INK4a adds no meaningful value to the performance of ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About