| Literature DB >> 18212751 |
C de Micco1, V Savchenko, R Giorgi, F Sebag, J-F Henry.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic interest of Hector Battifora mesothelial antigen-1 (HBME-1), thyroid peroxidase (TPO), and dipeptidyl aminopeptidase IV (DPP4) in thyroid fine-needle aspirates obtained from 200 resected thyroid lesions (55 colloid nodules, 54 follicular adenomas, 59 papillary cancers, and 32 follicular carcinomas). Hector Battifora mesothelial antigen-1 or TPO expression (% positive cells) and DPP4 staining score (12-point scale) were evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted and optimal cutoff values for diagnosing malignancy were determined. The TPO ROC curve was consistently higher than the HBME-1 ROC curve. The TPO curve was also higher than the DPP4 curve with regard to sensitivity, but dipped below the DPP4 curve with regard to specificity. Using a cutoff value of <80% positive cells for TPO, >10% positive cells for HBME-1, and staining score > or =1 for DPP4, sensitivity to specificity ratios were 98-83% for TPO, 90-60% for HBME-1, and 88-80% for DPP4. Two particularly interesting findings of this study were the low negative likelihood ratio of TPO (0.02) allowing highly reliable exclusion of malignancy and the 100% specificity of DPP4 staining scores=12. Due to poor performance on follicular lesions, HBME-1 showed no advantage over TPO or DPP4.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18212751 PMCID: PMC2259194 DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604194
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Thyroid peroxidase and HBME immunocytochemistry on FNA smears from 200 thyroid tumorss
|
| ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CN ( | TPO | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 43 |
| HBME | 32 | 5 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | |
| FA ( | TPO | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 13 | 3 | 23 |
| HBME | 19 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 4 | |
| PC ( | TPO | 28 | 13 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| HBME | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 29 | |
| FC ( | TPO | 4 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| HBME | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 18 | |
CN=colloid nodule, FA=follicular adenoma, FC=follicular carcinoma, FNA=fine-needle aspiration, HBME=Hector Battifora mesothelial antigen, PC=papillary carcinoma.
The table presents the number of cases.
Scores of DPP4 activity according to histological diagnoses
|
| ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CN ( | 43 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FA ( | 41 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 0 |
| PC ( | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 7 | 37 |
| FC ( | 6 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 5 |
CN=colloid nodule, DPP4=dipeptidyl aminopeptidase IV, FA=follicular adenoma, FC=follicular carcinoma, PC=papillary cancer.
The table presents the number of cases.
Figure 1Pattern of positive staining of TPO, HBME, and DPP4. (A) Staining of TPO in benign follicular adenoma: brown granular deposit all over the cytoplasm and around the nuclei. (B) Staining of HBME in papillary cancer: brown reaction predominant on cellular membranes. (C) Staining of DPP4 in papillary cancer: contrasted red reaction within cytoplasm and along membranes.
Figure 2Receiver operating characteristic curves obtained with threshold values from 0 to 100% for TPO, 100 to 0% for HBME, and 12 to 0 for DPP4. *Threshold values resulting in the best sensitivity for each marker.