Literature DB >> 26598982

Calibration and Optimization of p53, WT1, and Napsin A Immunohistochemistry Ancillary Tests for Histotyping of Ovarian Carcinoma: Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control (CIQC) Experience.

Sandra Lee1, Anna M Piskorz, Cécile Le Page, Anne-Marie Mes Masson, Diane Provencher, David Huntsman, Wenqian Chen, Paul E Swanson, C Blake Gilks, Martin Köbel.   

Abstract

The Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control provides proficiency testing for immunohistochemistry in Canadian laboratories. Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control Run 42 assessed WT1, Napsin A, and p53; commonly used markers for histotyping ovarian carcinomas. A 42-core tissue microarray, which included the 5 major histotypes of ovarian carcinomas with a subset having known TP53 mutational status, was used for this Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control challenge. Participants included 43 laboratories for p53, 29 for WT1, and 26 for Napsin A. p53 was scored as aberrant if the staining was strong and diffuse or absent. Napsin A and WT1 were scored positive if any tumor cells stained. The reference p53 expression pattern was inferred by TP53 mutation type when available. For WT1, Napsin A, and cases lacking mutational data, the reference staining pattern was based on the majority staining result. The error rate for p53 was 8.8%. Most errors (84%) were due to weak staining. The sensitivity and specificity of aberrant p53 expression for an underlying TP53 mutation was 91.6% and 87.9%, respectively. The error rate for WT1 was 0.76% with all errors occurring in laboratories using the 6F-h2 clone. The average errors for laboratories using 6F-h2 were 2.4 compared with 0 for WT-49. The error rate for Napsin A was 4%. The average errors for laboratories using polyclonal Napsin A were 3 compared with 1.1 for monoclonal Napsin A. Weak p53 staining increases interpretative errors, primarily due to absence of staining in tumors with wild-type TP53. p53 immunohistochemistry correlates strongly with TP53 mutational status. Polyclonal Napsin A and 6F-h2 may lack specificity in comparison to monoclonal Napsin A and WT-49.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26598982     DOI: 10.1097/PGP.0000000000000251

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol        ISSN: 0277-1691            Impact factor:   2.762


  8 in total

Review 1.  The evolution of endometrial carcinoma classification through application of immunohistochemistry and molecular diagnostics: past, present and future.

Authors:  Emily A Goebel; August Vidal; Xavier Matias-Guiu; C Blake Gilks
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Clinicopathologic and Genomic Analysis of TP53-Mutated Endometrial Carcinomas.

Authors:  Lora H Ellenson; Britta Weigelt; Robert A Soslow; Amir Momeni-Boroujeni; Wissam Dahoud; Chad M Vanderbilt; Sarah Chiang; Rajmohan Murali; Eric V Rios-Doria; Kaled M Alektiar; Carol Aghajanian; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Marc Ladanyi
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2021-02-18       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  Optimized p53 immunohistochemistry is an accurate predictor of TP53 mutation in ovarian carcinoma.

Authors:  Martin Köbel; Anna M Piskorz; Sandra Lee; Shuhong Lui; Cecile LePage; Francesco Marass; Nitzan Rosenfeld; Anne-Marie Mes Masson; James D Brenton
Journal:  J Pathol Clin Res       Date:  2016-07-13

4.  WT1, p53 and p16 expression in the diagnosis of low- and high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas and their relation to prognosis.

Authors:  Luis Felipe Sallum; Liliana Andrade; Susana Ramalho; Amanda Canato Ferracini; Rodrigo de Andrade Natal; Angelo Borsarelli Carvalho Brito; Luis Otávio Sarian; Sophie Derchain
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2018-02-19

Review 5.  Interpretation of P53 Immunohistochemistry in Endometrial Carcinomas: Toward Increased Reproducibility.

Authors:  Martin Köbel; Brigitte M Ronnett; Naveena Singh; Robert A Soslow; C Blake Gilks; W Glenn McCluggage
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 2.762

6.  An Immunohistochemical Algorithm for Ovarian Carcinoma Typing.

Authors:  Martin Köbel; Kurosh Rahimi; Peter F Rambau; Christopher Naugler; Cécile Le Page; Liliane Meunier; Manon de Ladurantaye; Sandra Lee; Samuel Leung; Ellen L Goode; Susan J Ramus; Joseph W Carlson; Xiaodong Li; Carol A Ewanowich; Linda E Kelemen; Barbara Vanderhyden; Diane Provencher; David Huntsman; Cheng-Han Lee; C Blake Gilks; Anne-Marie Mes Masson
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Pathol       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 2.762

7.  Characteristics and outcome of the COEUR Canadian validation cohort for ovarian cancer biomarkers.

Authors:  Cécile Le Page; Kurosh Rahimi; Martin Köbel; Patricia N Tonin; Liliane Meunier; Lise Portelance; Monique Bernard; Brad H Nelson; Marcus Q Bernardini; John M S Bartlett; Dimcho Bachvarov; Walter H Gotlieb; Blake Gilks; Jessica N McAlpine; Mark W Nachtigal; Alain Piché; Peter H Watson; Barbara Vanderhyden; David G Huntsman; Diane M Provencher; Anne-Marie Mes-Masson
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 4.430

8.  Napsin A Expression in Human Tumors and Normal Tissues.

Authors:  Sören Weidemann; Jan Lukas Böhle; Hendrina Contreras; Andreas M Luebke; Martina Kluth; Franziska Büscheck; Claudia Hube-Magg; Doris Höflmayer; Katharina Möller; Christoph Fraune; Christian Bernreuther; Michael Rink; Ronald Simon; Anne Menz; Andrea Hinsch; Patrick Lebok; Till Clauditz; Guido Sauter; Ria Uhlig; Waldemar Wilczak; Stefan Steurer; Eike Burandt; Rainer Krech; David Dum; Till Krech; Andreas Marx; Sarah Minner
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 3.201

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.