| Literature DB >> 21826275 |
Mamatha Chivukula1, Leo A Niemeier, Robert Edwards, Marina Nikiforova, Geetha Mantha, Kim McManus, Gloria Carter.
Abstract
As the role of distal fallopian tube as organ of serous carcinogenesis is emerging, additional literature on the role of tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (TIC) as a precursor lesion in a subset of primary peritoneal serous carcinomas (PPSC is emerging as well. TIC although fallopian tube in origin can be genetically related to ovarian/peritoneal carcinomas. The role of PAX2 in primary fallopian tube carcinomas (PFTC)/PPSC is yet to be defined. The aim of our study was to understand if the biologic properties of tumors arising in the distal fallopian tube that remain as PFTC are different when they seed on to the peritoneal surface (PPSC). A panel of 6 polymorphic microsatellite markers corresponding to p53, PAX2, and WT1 tumor suppressor genes were studied. Invasive carcinomas as well as TIC arising in the distal fallopian tube when remain as PFTC appears to exhibit different LOH patterns in comparison to PPSC. PAX 2 LOH patterns might represent a "hidden PAX 2 signature" analogous to p53 signatures. PAX 2 might be an emerging marker for detection of early serous carcinomas particularly in BRCA + women.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 21826275 PMCID: PMC3149410 DOI: 10.5402/2011/858647
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ISRN Obstet Gynecol ISSN: 2090-4436
Figure 1Hematoxylin and Eosin section of primary fallopian tube carcinoma (PFTC) with high grade serous papillary morphology: “nuclear” expression for PAX 2, p53, and WT-1 immunostains.
Figure 2Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) section of primary peritoneal serous carcinomas (PPSC) with high-grade serous papillary morphology: “nuclear” expression for PAX 2, p53, and WT-1 immunostains.
Figure 3Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) section of tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (TIC) with stratified epithelium, marked nuclear atypia associated with a subset of PPSC as well as PFTC: “nuclear” expression for PAX 2, p53, and WT-1 immunostains.
Figure 4This figure shows the Loss of Heterozygosity (LOH) patterns of the normal (a) in comparison to the corresponding tumor (b), (c).
Antibodies, sources, and conditions.
| Antibody | Vendor | Reference no. | Clone | Dilution | Pre-Treatment | Detection |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WT-1 protein | Cell Marque; Rocklin, CA | CMA788 | 6F-H2 | Pre-dilute | CC1 mild plus Protease 3, 4 min; Vetana Medical | Iview DAB plus Amplification; Ventana |
| PAX-2 | Zymed-Invitrogen; Carlsbad, CA | 71–6000 | Rabbit Polyclonal | 1 : 30 | CC1 standard | Iview DAB |
| P53 | Ventana Medical; Tucson, AZ | 790–2912 | DO-7 | Pre-dilute | CC1 standard | Iview DAB |
Clinical and pathologic features of Group 1 [primary fallopian tube carcinoma (PFTC)] arising in the background of tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (TIC).
| PFTC ( | Age | Histology Diagnosis | Tumor size(cm) | Lymph nodemetastasis | FIGO stage | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | |||||
| Case 1 | 48 | High grade serous | 8.0 | 0 | 6 | T1a |
| Case 2 | 81 | High grade serous | 0.8 | 0 | 6 | T1a |
| Case 3 | 73 | High grade serous | 5.5 | 0 | 9 | T2a |
| Case 4 | 58 | High grade serous | 3.0 | 0 | 9 | T1a |
| Case 5 | 79 | High grade serous | 5.0 | 0 | 6 | T1a |
| Case 6 | 71 | High grade serous | 4.5 | 1 | 4 | T3c |
| Case 7 | 77 | High grade serous | 1.6 | 0 | 21 | T3a |
| Case 8 | 44 | High grade serous | 6.0 | 6 | 15 | T3c |
| Case 9 | 67 | High grade serous | 1.5 | 23 | 0 | T3c |
PFTC: Primary fallopian tube carcinomas.
Immunohistochemical (IHC) and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) analysis of Group 1: primary fallopian tube carcinoma (PFTC) and associated tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (TIC).
| PPSC/+ | Associated TIC | PFTC | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAX 2 | WT-1 | P53 | PAX 2 | WT-1 | P53 | |||||||
| * | LOH | * | LOH | * | LOH | * | LOH | * | LOH | * | LOH | |
| ♦Case 1 | 0 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 7 |
| 0 | No LOH | 6 | No LOH | 7 |
|
| Case 2 | 0 | 3 | 7 | No LOH | 3 |
| 7 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | ||
| Case 3 | 6 | 7 | 0 | 6 | No LOH | 7 |
| 7 | No LOH | |||
| Case 4 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 6 | No LOH | 7 |
| 7 |
| |||
| ♦Case 5 | 2 |
| 7 | No LOH | 0 | 3 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 0 | No LOH | |
| ♦Case 6 | 7 |
| 6 |
| 7 | No LOH | 7 |
| 7 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH |
| Case 7 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 0 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | |||
| Case 8 | 3 | 7 | 7 | **0 |
| 7 | No LOH | 7 |
| |||
| ♦Case 9 | **0 |
| 7 |
| **0 |
| 0 | No LOH | 7 |
| 0 | No LOH |
| Case 10 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 6 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | |||
*IHC (CS): a cumulative score (CS) was calculated incorporating PS as well as IS. The score was derived by the summation of PS and IS, ranged from 0 to 8 and is further divided into Negative (0), Weak (1-2), Moderate (3–5), Strong (6–8).
(**): PAX signature; (♦): 4 cases of TIC on which LOH was performed.
Immunohistochemical (IHC) and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) analysis of Group 2: primary peritoneal serous carcinomas (PPSC) without associated tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (TIC).
| PPSC/− | PAX 2 | WT-1 | P53 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| * | LOH | ∗ | LOH | * | LOH | |
| Case 1 | 7 |
| 7 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH |
| Case 2 | **0 |
| 7 |
| 7 | No LOH |
| Case 3 | **0 |
| 7 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH |
| Case 4 | 7 |
| 7 |
| 7 |
|
| Case 5 | **0 |
| 7 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH |
| Case 6 | 7 | No LOH | 7 |
| 3 |
|
| Case 7 | 3 |
| 7 |
| 7 |
|
| Case 8 | 3 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH |
| Case 9 | 3 |
| 7 | No LOH | 7 |
|
*IHC (CS): a cumulative score (CS) was calculated incorporating PS as well as IS. The score was derived by the summation of PS and IS, ranged from 0 to 8 and is further divided into Negative (0), Weak (1-2), Moderate (3–5), Strong (6–8).
(**): PAX signature.
Immunohistochemical (IHC) and loss of heterozygosity (LOH) analysis of Group 3: primary peritoneal serous carcinomas (PPSC) with associated tubal intraepithelial carcinoma (TIC).
| PPSC/+ | Associated TIC | PPSC | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAX 2 | WT-1 | P53 | PAX 2 | WT-1 | P53 | |||||||
| * | LOH | * | LOH | * | LOH | * | LOH | * | LOH | * | LOH | |
| Case 1 | 1 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 0 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH |
| Case 2 | 0 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 4 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH |
| Case 3 | 5 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 6 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH |
| Case 4 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 0 | No LOH | 7 | No LOH | 6 | No LOH | |
*IHC (CS): a cumulative score (CS) was calculated incorporating PS as well as IS. The score was derived by the summation of PS and IS, ranged from 0 to 8 and is further divided into Negative (0), Weak (1-2), Moderate (3–5), Strong (6–8).