OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic utility of the E-Cadherin (EC) expression in differentiating between an infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) and an infiltrating lobular carcinoma (ILC), the two most common forms of invasive breast carcinomas. METHODS: The authors evaluated the E-Cadherin expression by doing immunohistochemistical studies of all the cases of invasive lobular carcinomas (ILC) which were diagnosed in the pathology laboratory during a 3 year period and they compared the expression of E-Cadherin in an equal number of invasive ductal carcinomas (IDC) of the breast. RESULTS: A moderate to strong inter-membranous E-Cadherin expression on immunohistochemistry was seen in all the cases of IDC, while only 1 case of ILC showed a moderate E-Cadherin expression. Hence, the E-cadherin expression can be reliably used as a marker to differentiate IDC and ILC. However, an aberrant cytoplasmic expression of E-Cadherin may be seen in some cases of ILC, which should be interpreted with caution.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic utility of the E-Cadherin (EC) expression in differentiating between an infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) and an infiltrating lobular carcinoma (ILC), the two most common forms of invasive breast carcinomas. METHODS: The authors evaluated the E-Cadherin expression by doing immunohistochemistical studies of all the cases of invasive lobular carcinomas (ILC) which were diagnosed in the pathology laboratory during a 3 year period and they compared the expression of E-Cadherin in an equal number of invasive ductal carcinomas (IDC) of the breast. RESULTS: A moderate to strong inter-membranous E-Cadherin expression on immunohistochemistry was seen in all the cases of IDC, while only 1 case of ILC showed a moderate E-Cadherin expression. Hence, the E-cadherin expression can be reliably used as a marker to differentiate IDC and ILC. However, an aberrant cytoplasmic expression of E-Cadherin may be seen in some cases of ILC, which should be interpreted with caution.
Authors: Leonard Da Silva; Suzanne Parry; Lynne Reid; Patricia Keith; Nic Waddell; Myriam Kossai; Catherine Clarke; Sunil R Lakhani; Peter T Simpson Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Stacy B Sanders; Tanya L Hoskin; Malvika H Solanki; Arielle P Stafford; Judy C Boughey; Tina J Hieken Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: K Raghav; J T French; N T Ueno; X Lei; S Krishnamurthy; J M Reuben; V Valero; N K Ibrahim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nicolai J Toft; Trine V Axelsen; Helene L Pedersen; Marco Mele; Mark Burton; Eva Balling; Tonje Johansen; Mads Thomassen; Peer M Christiansen; Ebbe Boedtkjer Journal: Elife Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 8.140