Barbara A Centeno1. 1. Pathology Services, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa FL 33612, USA. centenba@moffitt.usf.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The liver is the most frequent site of metastatic disease, and metastatic disease to the liver is far more common than primary liver carcinoma in the United States. Pathologic evaluation of biopsy samples is key to establishing a correct diagnosis for patient management. Morphologic and immunoperoxidase studies, which are the standard for pathologic practice, accurately classify most tumors. Subclassification of carcinoma of unknown primary remains problematic. METHODS: The author reviewed the literature for articles pertaining to liver biopsy, diagnosis of specific tumor types, utility of immunohistochemical markers, and microarray and proteomic analysis. RESULTS: Sampling of liver lesions is best accomplished by combining fine-needle aspiration and needle core biopsy. Many malignancies have distinct morphologic and immunohistochemical patterns and can be correctly subclassified. Adenocarcinoma of unknown primary remains enigmatic since current immunohistochemical markers for this differential diagnosis lack specificity. Microarray analysis and proteomic analysis of tumors can provide distinct gene or protein expression profiles, respectively, for tumor classification. These technologies can be used with fine-needle aspiration and needle core biopsy samples. CONCLUSIONS: Most metastatic malignancies in the liver may be correctly diagnosed using standard morphology and immunohistochemical techniques. However, subtyping of some carcinomas and identification of site of unknown primary remains problematic. New technologies may help to further refine our diagnostic capabilities.
BACKGROUND: The liver is the most frequent site of metastatic disease, and metastatic disease to the liver is far more common than primary liver carcinoma in the United States. Pathologic evaluation of biopsy samples is key to establishing a correct diagnosis for patient management. Morphologic and immunoperoxidase studies, which are the standard for pathologic practice, accurately classify most tumors. Subclassification of carcinoma of unknown primary remains problematic. METHODS: The author reviewed the literature for articles pertaining to liver biopsy, diagnosis of specific tumor types, utility of immunohistochemical markers, and microarray and proteomic analysis. RESULTS: Sampling of liver lesions is best accomplished by combining fine-needle aspiration and needle core biopsy. Many malignancies have distinct morphologic and immunohistochemical patterns and can be correctly subclassified. Adenocarcinoma of unknown primary remains enigmatic since current immunohistochemical markers for this differential diagnosis lack specificity. Microarray analysis and proteomic analysis of tumors can provide distinct gene or protein expression profiles, respectively, for tumor classification. These technologies can be used with fine-needle aspiration and needle core biopsy samples. CONCLUSIONS: Most metastatic malignancies in the liver may be correctly diagnosed using standard morphology and immunohistochemical techniques. However, subtyping of some carcinomas and identification of site of unknown primary remains problematic. New technologies may help to further refine our diagnostic capabilities.
Authors: Ágnes Holczbauer; Benedek Gyöngyösi; Gábor Lotz; Attila Szijártó; Péter Kupcsulik; Zsuzsa Schaff; András Kiss Journal: J Histochem Cytochem Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 2.479
Authors: Alejandrina Vendrell; Claudia Mongini; María José Gravisaco; Andrea Canellada; Agustina Inés Tesone; Juan Carlos Goin; Claudia Inés Waldner Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Haarith Ndiaye; Jorlin Y Liu; Andrew Hall; Shane Minogue; Marsha Y Morgan; Mark G Waugh Journal: Biosci Rep Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 3.840