2018
DOI: 10.1053/j.semdp.2017.05.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Next generation immunohistochemistry: Emerging substitutes to genetic testing?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
30
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 109 publications
0
30
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Immunohistochemistry for SDHB and SDHA has obtained an important place in diagnostic pathology for the recognition of any SDH-related tumor and has become a well-established surrogate marker for molecular analysis and for confirmation of genetic variants of unknown significance. The current challenges are as follows: (1) to elaborate on such immunohistochemical markers in other areas of pathology [79]; (2) to detect genetic abnormalities in related genetic sequences (promoter regions, intron/exon boundaries) or genes (SDH assembly factors, other citric acid cycle genes); (3) to use the increasing knowledge on the functional consequences of loss of enzymatic activity for the development of therapeutic interventions that may affect or prevent tumor development.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Immunohistochemistry for SDHB and SDHA has obtained an important place in diagnostic pathology for the recognition of any SDH-related tumor and has become a well-established surrogate marker for molecular analysis and for confirmation of genetic variants of unknown significance. The current challenges are as follows: (1) to elaborate on such immunohistochemical markers in other areas of pathology [79]; (2) to detect genetic abnormalities in related genetic sequences (promoter regions, intron/exon boundaries) or genes (SDH assembly factors, other citric acid cycle genes); (3) to use the increasing knowledge on the functional consequences of loss of enzymatic activity for the development of therapeutic interventions that may affect or prevent tumor development.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although SDH‐deficient RCCs are much less aggressive than FH‐deficient RCCs, metastatic progression has been reported in approximately 10% to 20% of cases, which is likely greater than that reported in oncocytic tumors, such as chromophobe RCC. Prospective recognition of these tumors, whether by clinical correlation or use of SDHB immunostaining, also is important for evaluating the risk of paragangliomas, which tend to be aggressive when arising in this syndrome …”
Section: Distinctive Rcc Types With Strong Hereditary Associationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Triage of these cases, as anticipated by the above referenced commentary on “FH‐deficient” immunophenotype, has been aided by the recent advent of immunohistochemical surrogates of FH mutation status (Fig. ).…”
Section: Fh‐deficient Rcc − From Metabolomic Derangement To Aggressivmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…63 This provisional term, for use in morphologically appropriate high grade tumors where clinical and genetic correlation are unavailable but FH-deficient phenotype confirmed by IHC (or mutations in the tumor), is to be employed with strong recommendation for genetic testing, given that most such cases are still believed to be syndromal. 58 Triage of these cases, as anticipated by the above referenced commentary on "FH-deficient" immunophenotype, has been aided by the recent advent of immunohistochemical surrogates of FH mutation status 13 (Fig. 2).…”
Section: Fh-deficient Rcc à From Metabolomic Derangement To Aggressivmentioning
confidence: 99%