Takashi Murakami1,2, Takashi Yao3, Hiroyuki Mitomi4, Takashi Morimoto5, Hiroya Ueyama5, Kenshi Matsumoto5, Tsuyoshi Saito3, Taro Osada5, Akihito Nagahara5, Sumio Watanabe5. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8421, Japan. t-murakm@juntendo.ac.jp. 2. Department of Human Pathology, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8421, Japan. t-murakm@juntendo.ac.jp. 3. Department of Human Pathology, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8421, Japan. 4. Department of Surgical and Molecular Pathology, Dokkyo Medical University School of Medicine, Tochigi, Japan. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8421, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastric adenocarcinoma with enteroblastic differentiation (GAED) has been recognized as a variant of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP)-producing gastric carcinoma, although its clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical features have not been fully elucidated. METHODS: To elucidate the clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical features of GAED, we analyzed 29 cases of GAED, including ten early and 19 advanced lesions, and compared these cases with 100 cases of conventional gastric adenocarcinoma (CGA). Immunohistochemistry for AFP, glypican 3, SALL4, and p53 was performed, and the phenotypic expression of the tumors was evaluated by immunostaining with antibodies against MUC5AC, MUC6, MUC2, CD10, and caudal-type homeobox 2 (CDX2). RESULTS: Lymphatic and venous invasion was more frequent in GAED (76 and 72 %) than in CGA (41 and 31 %; P ≤ 0.001). Lymph node metastasis was more frequently observed in GAED (69 %) than in CGA (38 %; P = 0.005), as were synchronous or metachronous liver metastases (GAED, 31 %; CGA, 6 %; P ≤ 0.001). Immunohistochemically, all GAED were positive for at least one of three enteroblastic linage markers (AFP, glypican 3, and SALL4). Glypican 3 was the most sensitive marker (83 %) for GAED, followed by SALL4 (72 %) and AFP (45 %), whereas no CGA was positive. Furthermore, the rate of positive p53 staining was 59 % in GAED. Regarding the mucin phenotype, CD10 and CDX2 were diffusely or focally expressed in all GAED cases. Invasive areas with hepatoid or enteroblastic differentiation were negative for CD10 and CDX2. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicopathologic features of GAED differ from those of CGA. GAED shows aggressive biological behavior, and is characteristically immunoreactive to AFP, glypican 3, or SALL4.
BACKGROUND:Gastric adenocarcinoma with enteroblastic differentiation (GAED) has been recognized as a variant of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP)-producing gastric carcinoma, although its clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical features have not been fully elucidated. METHODS: To elucidate the clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical features of GAED, we analyzed 29 cases of GAED, including ten early and 19 advanced lesions, and compared these cases with 100 cases of conventional gastric adenocarcinoma (CGA). Immunohistochemistry for AFP, glypican 3, SALL4, and p53 was performed, and the phenotypic expression of the tumors was evaluated by immunostaining with antibodies against MUC5AC, MUC6, MUC2, CD10, and caudal-type homeobox 2 (CDX2). RESULTS: Lymphatic and venous invasion was more frequent in GAED (76 and 72 %) than in CGA (41 and 31 %; P ≤ 0.001). Lymph node metastasis was more frequently observed in GAED (69 %) than in CGA (38 %; P = 0.005), as were synchronous or metachronous liver metastases (GAED, 31 %; CGA, 6 %; P ≤ 0.001). Immunohistochemically, all GAED were positive for at least one of three enteroblastic linage markers (AFP, glypican 3, and SALL4). Glypican 3 was the most sensitive marker (83 %) for GAED, followed by SALL4 (72 %) and AFP (45 %), whereas no CGA was positive. Furthermore, the rate of positive p53 staining was 59 % in GAED. Regarding the mucin phenotype, CD10 and CDX2 were diffusely or focally expressed in all GAED cases. Invasive areas with hepatoid or enteroblastic differentiation were negative for CD10 and CDX2. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicopathologic features of GAED differ from those of CGA. GAED shows aggressive biological behavior, and is characteristically immunoreactive to AFP, glypican 3, or SALL4.
Authors: Lorri A Morford; Christina Davis; Lin Jin; Aneta Dobierzewska; Martha L Peterson; Brett T Spear Journal: Hepatology Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Bee Hui Liu; Chacko Jobichen; C S Brian Chia; Tim Hon Man Chan; Jing Ping Tang; Theodora X Y Chung; Jia Li; Anders Poulsen; Alvin W Hung; Xiaoying Koh-Stenta; Yaw Sing Tan; Chandra S Verma; Hong Kee Tan; Chan-Shuo Wu; Feng Li; Jeffrey Hill; Joma Joy; Henry Yang; Li Chai; J Sivaraman; Daniel G Tenen Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Adeline Yang; Alison Patterson; Tara Pavlock; Kenneth S Chen; Jeffrey Gagan; Mark E Hatley; A Lindsay Frazier; James F Amatruda; Theodore W Laetsch; Dinesh Rakheja Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2021-12-05 Impact factor: 3.838
Authors: K J Norberg; X Liu; C Fernández Moro; C Strell; S Nania; M Blümel; A Balboni; B Bozóky; R L Heuchel; J M Löhr Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 4.430