Literature DB >> 22285043

An immunohistochemical comparison of cytokeratin 7, cytokeratin 15, cytokeratin 19, CAM 5.2, carcinoembryonic antigen, and nestin in differentiating porocarcinoma from squamous cell carcinoma.

Meera Mahalingam1, Joanna E Richards, M Angelica Selim, Alona Muzikansky, Mai P Hoang.   

Abstract

The distinction of porocarcinoma from squamous cell carcinoma is clinically relevant but can often be a diagnostic dilemma. Current markers reported to be helpful in diagnosing porocarcinoma include carcinoembryonic antigen and cytokeratin 7; however, their expression has been demonstrated in 30% to 80% and 13% to 22% of squamous cell carcinoma cases, respectively. In this study, we assessed immunohistochemical expression of cytokeratin 7, cytokeratin 15, cytokeratin 19, CAM 5.2, carcinoembryonic antigen, and nestin in 67 cases (39 porocarcinomas and 28 moderately differentiated squamous cell carcinomas) to determine their use as histologic adjuncts. Expression of carcinoembryonic antigen, cytokeratin 19, cytokeratin 7, CAM 5.2, cytokeratin 15, and nestin was seen in 77%, 67%, 64%, 51%, 49%, and 13% of porocarcinomas, respectively; and in 57%, 18%, 26%, 32%, 30%, and 37% of squamous cell carcinomas, respectively. Of these, cytokeratin 19 was the most specific (specificity, 82%) in detecting porocarcinomas, and carcinoembryonic antigen was the most sensitive (sensitivity, 77%). By χ(2) test, statistically significant P values (<.05) were observed for cytokeratin 7, cytokeratin 19, and nestin in the distinction of porocarcinoma from squamous cell carcinoma. However, in a logistic regression and stepwise selection for predicting a porocarcinoma, statistical significance was observed only for cytokeratin 19 (P = .0003). In conclusion, we found cytokeratin 19 to be a helpful marker in the distinction of porocarcinoma from squamous cell carcinoma, although a focal staining pattern can be seen in a third of cases. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity appear to be significantly improved using a selected panel of immunohistochemical stains that include cytokeratin 7, cytokeratin 19, and nestin.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22285043     DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2011.10.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Pathol        ISSN: 0046-8177            Impact factor:   3.466


  6 in total

1.  Primary Eccrine Porocarcinoma of the Breast: A Case Report and Review of Literature.

Authors:  Yi Xin Li; Mihir Gudi; Zhiyan Yan
Journal:  Case Rep Oncol Med       Date:  2022-05-31

2.  Eosinophilic variant of eccrine porocarcinoma of the scalp: Case report and review of the literature.

Authors:  M D Horwich; J Finch; O Ibrahimi; S S Dadras
Journal:  Int J Womens Dermatol       Date:  2017-07-14

3.  Clinical significance of cytokeratin in the cervical lymph nodes of patients with mandibular gingival squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Qingyun Duan; Mei Xu; Xiong Zhang; Muyun Jia; Rongtao Yuan; Min Gan
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2018-06-21       Impact factor: 2.967

Review 4.  Intergluteal Cleft Eccrine Porocarcinoma with Metastasis to Inguinal Region and Lung: Case Report and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Ricardo Fernández-Ferreira; Gabriela Alvarado-Luna; Daniel Motola-Kuba; Ileana Mackinney-Novelo; Eduardo Emir Cervera-Ceballos; Román Segura-Rivera
Journal:  Case Rep Oncol       Date:  2020-12-10

5.  Eccrine Porocarcinoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Study with Review of the Literatures Reported in Korea.

Authors:  Hee Joo Kim; Anna Kim; Kyung-Chul Moon; Soo Hong Seo; Il-Hwan Kim; Aeree Kim; Yoo Sang Baek
Journal:  Ann Dermatol       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 1.444

6.  Pigmented eccrine poroma in an atypical location.

Authors:  Melissa de Almeida Corrêa Alfredo; Mariana Righetto de Ré Lai; Luciane Donida Bartoli Miot; Gabriela Roncada Haddad; Aline Lutz Garcia; Hélio Amante Miot
Journal:  An Bras Dermatol       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 2.113

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.