Literature DB >> 23664542

Usefulness of significant morphologic characteristics in distinguishing between Merkel cell polyomavirus-positive and Merkel cell polyomavirus-negative Merkel cell carcinomas.

Takeshi Iwasaki1, Michiko Matsushita, Satoshi Kuwamoto, Masako Kato, Ichiro Murakami, Hiromi Higaki-Mori, Hideki Nakajima, Shigetoshi Sano, Kazuhiko Hayashi.   

Abstract

Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) monoclonally integrates into genomes of approximately 80% of Merkel cell carcinomas (MCCs) and undergoes mutation. We previously demonstrated statistically significant differences in tumor cell morphology and biology between MCPyV-positive and MCPyV-negative MCCs. We reassessed the usefulness of our morphologic criteria in differentiating MCPyV-negative and MCPyV-positive MCCs for practical diagnosis. Two trainees and 4 pathologists challenged estimations (5-point confidence scale) of MCPyV infection in MCCs using hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides of 43 new MCC cases and 2 morphologic criteria: (1) nuclear polymorphism is higher and cytoplasm is more abundant in MCPyV-negative MCC cells, and (2) MCC combined with squamous cell carcinoma is defined as MCPyV negative, regardless of tumor cell morphology of MCC. Subsequently, immunohistochemistry for MCPyV large T antigen and polymerase chain reaction for MCPyV DNA yielded concordant results (MCPyV positivity was 30/43 and 32/43, respectively) for 41 (96%) of 43 cases. The mean accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the trainees and pathologists were 92.4% ± 1.5% and 81.5% ± 11.0%, 95.6% ± 6.2% and 90.2% ± 8.3%, and 83.3% ± 11.8% and 74.6% ± 14.1%, respectively. Values of the areas under the curve were 0.80 to 0.95, indicating good informative scores. Using our morphologic criteria, observers can predict the absence of MCPyV infection and diagnose MCPyV-negative MCCs with poor prognosis. Unexpectedly, the performance of trainees was superior to that of pathologists, implying that our morphologic criteria are useful even for practitioners having little experience. Our morphologic criteria will provide pathologists with convenient and reliable hallmarks for accurate MCC diagnosis.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Histologic criteria; Merkel cell carcinoma; Merkel cell polyomavirus; Morphologic prediction for MCPyV infection

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23664542     DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2013.01.026

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


  13 in total

1.  Cytokeratin 20-negative Merkel cell carcinoma is infrequently associated with the Merkel cell polyomavirus.

Authors:  Andrew G Miner; Rajiv M Patel; Deborah A Wilson; Gary W Procop; Eugen C Minca; Douglas R Fullen; Paul W Harms; Steven D Billings
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 7.842

2.  Comment on 'Cytokeratin 20-negative Merkel cell carcinoma is infrequently associated with the Merkel cell polyomavirus'.

Authors:  Takeshi Iwasaki; Michiko Matsushita; Daisuke Nonaka; Ichiro Murakami; Kazuhiko Hayashi
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 7.842

3.  Higher Expression of Activation-induced Cytidine Deaminase Is Significantly Associated with Merkel Cell Polyomavirus-negative Merkel Cell Carcinomas.

Authors:  Michiko Matsushita; Takeshi Iwasaki; Daisuke Nonaka; Satoshi Kuwamoto; Keiko Nagata; Masako Kato; Yukisato Kitamura; Kazuhiko Hayashi
Journal:  Yonago Acta Med       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 1.641

4.  Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) strains in Japanese merkel cell carcinomas (MCC) are distinct from Caucasian type MCPyVs: genetic variability and phylogeny of MCPyV genomes obtained from Japanese MCPyV-infected MCCs.

Authors:  Michiko Matsushita; Takeshi Iwasaki; Satoshi Kuwamoto; Masako Kato; Keiko Nagata; Ichiro Murakami; Yukisato Kitamura; Kazuhiko Hayashi
Journal:  Virus Genes       Date:  2013-12-19       Impact factor: 2.332

5.  Cutaneous squamous and neuroendocrine carcinoma: genetically and immunohistochemically different from Merkel cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Melissa P Pulitzer; A Rose Brannon; Michael F Berger; Peter Louis; Sasinya N Scott; Achim A Jungbluth; Daniel G Coit; Isaac Brownell; Klaus J Busam
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 7.842

Review 6.  Update on Merkel Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Michael T Tetzlaff; Priyadharsini Nagarajan
Journal:  Head Neck Pathol       Date:  2018-03-20

7.  Aberrant expression of ALK and EZH2 in Merkel cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Tuukka Veija; Virve Koljonen; Tom Bohling; Mia Kero; Sakari Knuutila; Virinder Kaur Sarhadi
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2017-03-31       Impact factor: 4.430

8.  A new in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry with a novel antibody to detect small T-antigen expressions of Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV).

Authors:  Michiko Matsushita; Daisuke Nonaka; Takeshi Iwasaki; Satoshi Kuwamoto; Ichiro Murakami; Masako Kato; Keiko Nagata; Yukisato Kitamura; Kazuhiko Hayashi
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2014-03-20       Impact factor: 2.644

9.  Clinical and molecular characterization of virus-positive and virus-negative Merkel cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Gabriel J Starrett; Manisha Thakuria; Tianqi Chen; Christina Marcelus; Jingwei Cheng; Jason Nomburg; Aaron R Thorner; Michael K Slevin; Winslow Powers; Robert T Burns; Caitlin Perry; Adriano Piris; Frank C Kuo; Guilherme Rabinowits; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Laura E MacConaill; James A DeCaprio
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2020-03-18       Impact factor: 11.117

10.  LRIG1 is a positive prognostic marker in Merkel cell carcinoma and Merkel cell carcinoma expresses epithelial stem cell markers.

Authors:  Benjamin Sundqvist; Harri Sihto; Maria von Willebrand; Tom Böhling; Virve Koljonen
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2021-07-31       Impact factor: 4.064

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.