Literature DB >> 18753965

Immunohistochemical differences between mucinous and microglandular adenocarcinomas of the endometrium and benign endocervical epithelium.

Marina Chekmareva1, Lora H Ellenson, Edyta C Pirog.   

Abstract

Mucinous and microglandular adenocarcinomas of the endometrium (MUC-AD and MIGL-AD, respectively) are uncommon types of endometrial cancer. When present in endometrial biopsy or curettage, these tumors may display a unique microglandular architectural pattern mimicking benign microglandular hyperplasia (MGH) of the endocervix. We compared the immunoprofile of MUC-AD and MIGL-AD with that of MGH and benign endocervical glands to identify the markers that would reliably separate these malignancies from benign endocervical tissue. A total of 10 MIGL-AD and 30 MUC-AD cases were collected for the study. Fifteen consecutive cases of benign endocervical glands and MGH were used as a control group. All cases were stained for vimentin, p16, Ki-67, BCL-2, survivin, CD10, and CD34. p16 was the only marker that showed a significantly different staining pattern between the benign and malignant cases, whereas the staining for vimentin, Ki-67, BCL-2, and survivin demonstrated marked overlaps. All but 1 MUC-AD and MIGL-AD cases were positive for p16, whereas none of the cases of benign mucinous endocervical epithelium and MGH showed p16 positivity. Furthermore, the stromal cells of endocervix demonstrated weak to moderate positivity for CD10 and strong positivity for CD34, whereas endometrial tumors showed a reverse pattern, with strong stromal positivity for CD10 and either no, or only weak, staining for CD34. In conclusion, epithelial p16 and stromal CD10/CD34 immunostaining can be useful in distinguishing MUC-AD and MIGL-AD from benign endocervical epithelium in endometrial sampling.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18753965     DOI: 10.1097/PGP.0b013e318177eadc

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol        ISSN: 0277-1691            Impact factor:   2.762


  7 in total

Review 1.  [New features in the 2014 WHO classification of uterine neoplasms].

Authors:  S F Lax
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 1.011

Review 2.  The evolution of endometrial carcinoma classification through application of immunohistochemistry and molecular diagnostics: past, present and future.

Authors:  Emily A Goebel; August Vidal; Xavier Matias-Guiu; C Blake Gilks
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 3.  How to approach the many faces of endometrioid carcinoma.

Authors:  Anais Malpica
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 7.842

4.  Emerging relationships between papillary proliferation of the endometrium and endometrial carcinoma: evidence from an immunohistochemical and molecular analysis.

Authors:  Qin Liu; Qiongyan Wu; Minghua Yu; Haiyan Shi; Bingjian Lu
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2019-05-12       Impact factor: 4.064

5.  Papillary mucinous metaplasia: a distinct precursor of mucinous adenocarcinoma of the endometrium.

Authors:  Su Hyun Yoo
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2022-02-15

6.  Frequent promoter methylation of HOXD10 in endometrial carcinoma and its pathological significance.

Authors:  Fan Yang; Dongchen Liu; Yupeng Deng; Jun Wang; Shuyu Mei; Shuang Ge; Hailing Li; Cuijuan Zhang; Tingguo Zhang
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2020-03-19       Impact factor: 2.967

7.  Utility of p63 and PTEN staining in distinguishing cervical microglandular hyperplasia from endometrial endometrioid carcinoma with microglandular/mucinous features.

Authors:  Batoul A Aoun; Stephanie L Skala
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 7.778

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.