Literature DB >> 19763614

p16 INK4 and CEA can be mutually exchanged with confidence between both relevant three-marker panels (ER/Vim/CEA and ER/Vim/p16 INK4) in distinguishing primary endometrial adenocarcinomas from endocervical adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

Chih-Ping Han1, Ming-Yung Lee, Yeu-Sheng Tyan, Lai-Fong Kok, Chung-Chin Yao, Po-Hui Wang, Jeng-Dong Hsu, Szu-Wen Tseng.   

Abstract

The accurate distinction between primary endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) may require the use of multiple ancillary monoclonal antibodies in panels of immunohistochemistry stains. In addition to reappraising the expressions of four commonly used individual monoclonal antibodies [estrogen receptor (ER), Vimentin (Vim), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and p16(INK4)], this study was designed to investigate whether CEA and p16(INK4) can be effectively exchanged between two relevant three-marker panels (ER/Vim/CEA vs. ER/Vim/p16(INK4)) in distinguishing ECA from EMA. A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. Utilizing the avidin-biotin technique, tissue array sections were immunostained with the four aforementioned individual markers (ER, Vim, CEA, and p16(INK4)). In addition to the four individual monoclonal antibodies, both their respective three-marker panels, proposed here, showed statistically significant (p < 0.05) frequency differences between these two gynecologic tumors (ECA vs. EMA). The panel performance and test effectiveness revealed that both three-marker panels are promising and very helpful. According to our data, when histomorphological and clinical doubt exists as to the primary site of origin, we recommend using either of these two conventional three-marker panels, which consist of ER/Vim/CEA and ER/Vim/p16(INK4). CEA and p16(INK4) can be interchanged with confidence without significantly influencing the panel presentations and efficiencies in distinguishing between adenocarcinomas of endocervical and endometrial origin.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19763614     DOI: 10.1007/s00428-009-0826-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Virchows Arch        ISSN: 0945-6317            Impact factor:   4.064


  23 in total

Review 1.  Quantification of immunohistochemistry--issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment II.

Authors:  C R Taylor; R M Levenson
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 5.087

Review 2.  Quantification of immunohistochemistry--issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment I.

Authors:  R A Walker
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 5.087

Review 3.  Application of immunohistochemistry to gynecologic pathology.

Authors:  Khush Mittal; Robert Soslow; W G McCluggage
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 5.534

4.  A panel of immunohistochemical stains, including carcinoembryonic antigen, vimentin, and estrogen receptor, aids the distinction between primary endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinomas.

Authors:  W Glenn McCluggage; V Palaniappan Sumathi; Hilary A McBride; Anna Patterson
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.762

5.  Immunohistochemical determination of estrogen and progesterone receptor content in human breast cancer. Computer-assisted image analysis (QIC score) vs. subjective grading (IRS).

Authors:  W Remmele; K H Schicketanz
Journal:  Pathol Res Pract       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 3.250

6.  Nuclear Receptor Interaction Protein (NRIP) expression assay using human tissue microarray and immunohistochemistry technology confirming nuclear localization.

Authors:  Chih-Ping Han; Ming-Yung Lee; Shu-Ling Tzeng; Chung-Chin Yao; Po-Hui Wang; Ya-Wen Cheng; Show-Li Chen; Teresa S Wu; Yeu-Sheng Tyan; Lai-Fong Kok
Journal:  J Exp Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2008-08-02

7.  Adding the p16(INK4a) marker to the traditional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel engenders no supplemental benefit in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

Authors:  Chih-Ping Han; Ming-Yung Lee; Lai-Fong Kok; Alexandra Ruan; Tina S Wu; Ya-Wen Cheng; Yeu-Sheng Tyan; Ching-Yi Lin
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.762

8.  Ancillary p16(INK4a) adds no meaningful value to the performance of ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

Authors:  Chung-Chin Yao; Lai-Fong Kok; Ming-Yung Lee; Po-Hui Wang; Tina S Wu; Yeu-Sheng Tyan; Ya-Wen Cheng; Mei-Fen Kung; Chih-Ping Han
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2009-01-20       Impact factor: 2.344

9.  Immunohistochemical staining in the distinction between primary endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinomas: another viewpoint.

Authors:  Seiryu Kamoi; Muna I AlJuboury; Marie-Rose Akin; Steven G Silverberg
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.762

10.  Inclusion of MUC1 (Ma695) in a panel of immunohistochemical markers is useful for distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Thaer Khoury; Dongfeng Tan; Jianmin Wang; Marilyn Intengan; Jun Yang; Sadir Alrawi; Peisha Yan; James C Byrd
Journal:  BMC Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-01-12
View more
  2 in total

1.  The prognosis significance of TGF-β1 and ER protein in cervical adenocarcinoma patients with stage Ib~IIa.

Authors:  Dong-Mei Fan; Xiao-Yu Tian; Rui-Fang Wang; Juan-Juan Yu
Journal:  Tumour Biol       Date:  2014-08-12

2.  Distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas: is a 2-marker (Vim/CEA) panel enough?

Authors:  Chiung-Ling Liao; Jeng-Dong Hsu; Ming-Yung Lee; Lai-Fong Kok; Yi-Ju Li; Po-Hui Wang; Chung-Chin Yao; Chih-Ping Han
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2010-03-11       Impact factor: 4.064

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.