INTRODUCTION: Tissue microarrays (TMA) enable rapid analysis of biomarkers in large-scale studies involving archival tumor specimens, however, their utility in heterogeneous tumors such as ovarian cancer is limited. METHODS: In this study, immunohistochemical analysis was done on TMAs comprised of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) to estimate the prevalence of loss of expression of three mismatch repair proteins. TMAs were initially created using cores sampled from the center of donor tissue blocks from 59 EOC cases. Full sections were subsequently created and levels of expression were compared between tissues sampled from the central portion versus the periphery. Follow-up analyses were done by obtaining cores from the periphery of up to five additional donor blocks per case. A linear mixed model for each protein was used to investigate differences between results from the initial and follow-up blocks. RESULTS: In the original TMAs created using centrally sampled cores, loss of mismatch repair expression was noted in 17 (29%) of the 59 cases. By comparison, analyses from peripherally sampled cores revealed loss of expression in only 6 of these 17 cases. For each protein, significant differences (P < 0.05) were detected between results from the initial donor block and the majority of the follow-up blocks. CONCLUSIONS: Our investigations, based on EOC, suggest that sampling variability in protein expression may result when TMAs are used. Thus, at least for EOC, it is important to preferentially sample from the periphery of tumor blocks where exposure to tissue fixatives is optimal.
INTRODUCTION: Tissue microarrays (TMA) enable rapid analysis of biomarkers in large-scale studies involving archival tumor specimens, however, their utility in heterogeneous tumors such as ovarian cancer is limited. METHODS: In this study, immunohistochemical analysis was done on TMAs comprised of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) to estimate the prevalence of loss of expression of three mismatch repair proteins. TMAs were initially created using cores sampled from the center of donor tissue blocks from 59 EOC cases. Full sections were subsequently created and levels of expression were compared between tissues sampled from the central portion versus the periphery. Follow-up analyses were done by obtaining cores from the periphery of up to five additional donor blocks per case. A linear mixed model for each protein was used to investigate differences between results from the initial and follow-up blocks. RESULTS: In the original TMAs created using centrally sampled cores, loss of mismatch repair expression was noted in 17 (29%) of the 59 cases. By comparison, analyses from peripherally sampled cores revealed loss of expression in only 6 of these 17 cases. For each protein, significant differences (P < 0.05) were detected between results from the initial donor block and the majority of the follow-up blocks. CONCLUSIONS: Our investigations, based on EOC, suggest that sampling variability in protein expression may result when TMAs are used. Thus, at least for EOC, it is important to preferentially sample from the periphery of tumor blocks where exposure to tissue fixatives is optimal.
Authors: Youli Zu; Seth M Steinberg; Elias Campo; Christine P Hans; Dennis D Weisenburger; Rita M Braziel; Jan Delabie; Randy D Gascoyne; Konrad Muller-Hermlink; Stefania Pittaluga; Mark Raffeld; Wing C Chan; Elaine S Jaffe Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2005-05
Authors: M Aarnio; R Sankila; E Pukkala; R Salovaara; L A Aaltonen; A de la Chapelle; P Peltomäki; J P Mecklin; H J Järvinen Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 1999-04-12 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: V A Marcus; L Madlensky; R Gryfe; H Kim; K So; A Millar; L K Temple; E Hsieh; T Hiruki; S Narod; B V Bapat; S Gallinger; M Redston Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Ellen L Goode; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Lynn C Hartmann; Brooke L Fridley; Kimberly R Kalli; Robert A Vierkant; Melissa C Larson; Kristin L White; Gary L Keeney; Trynda N Oberg; Julie M Cunningham; Jonathan Beesley; Sharon E Johnatty; Xiaoqing Chen; Katelyn E Goodman; Sebastian M Armasu; David N Rider; Hugues Sicotte; Michele M Schmidt; Elaine A Elliott; Estrid Høgdall; Susanne Krüger Kjær; Peter A Fasching; Arif B Ekici; Diether Lambrechts; Evelyn Despierre; Claus Høgdall; Lene Lundvall; Beth Y Karlan; Jenny Gross; Robert Brown; Jeremy Chien; David J Duggan; Ya-Yu Tsai; Catherine M Phelan; Linda E Kelemen; Prema P Peethambaram; Joellen M Schildkraut; Vijayalakshmi Shridhar; Rebecca Sutphen; Fergus J Couch; Thomas A Sellers Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-07-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Floor J Backes; Christopher J Walker; Paul J Goodfellow; Erinn M Hade; Garima Agarwal; David Mutch; David E Cohn; Adrian A Suarez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Vincent Ho; Liping Chung; Maxine Revoltar; Stephanie H Lim; Thein-Ga Tut; Askar Abubakar; Chris J Henderson; Wei Chua; Weng Ng; Mark Lee; Paul De Souza; Matthew Morgan; C Soon Lee; Joo-Shik Shin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Amit Atwal; Tristan Snowsill; Marcus Cabrera Dandy; Thomas Krum; Claire Newton; Dafydd Gareth Evans; Emma J Crosbie; Neil A J Ryan Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 7.316
Authors: Justinas Besusparis; Benoit Plancoulaine; Allan Rasmusson; Renaldas Augulis; Andrew R Green; Ian O Ellis; Aida Laurinaviciene; Paulette Herlin; Arvydas Laurinavicius Journal: Diagn Pathol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 2.644