BACKGROUND: Prostate specific antigen (PSA), prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA), and NKX3.1 are sensitive and prostate-specific markers frequently used for the diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). International Society of Urological Pathology recommends use of PSA as the initial immunohistochemical (IHC) marker to identify PCa. If the tumor is equivocal/weak/negative for PSA, then P501S and NKX3.1 stains are suggested. However, no specific studies have attempted to compare the staining sensitivity of these markers post specimen decalcification of bone specimens. In this study, we analyze the staining sensitivity of PSA, PSMA and NKX3.1 in bone specimens with mPCa after decalcification. DESIGN: We studied 24 cases of mPCa to the bone. All cases were decalcified for 24 to 48 hours prior to H&E staining and IHC workup. Eight cases were biopsies from vertebral bodies, five were from the femur, four came from the iliac bone, two were from ribs, three were from the pubic ramus, one was from the sacrum and one was from the skull. IHC staining pattern of PSA, PSMA and NKX3.1 was defined as follows: negative (no staining), focally positive (≤ 10%) and diffusely positive (≥ 10%). Focal and diffuse positivity are both considered positive. RESULTS: PSA was positive in 64% (14/22) cases, while PSMA and NKX3.1 were positive in all cases (17/17 and 24/24, respectively). The frequency of positive PSMA staining in decalcified samples of prostatic carcinoma metastatic to the bone is statistically higher than that of PSA staining, when analyzed by the Chi-square test (Chi-square statistic: 5.389; P = 0.0203). The frequency of positive NKX3.1 staining in decalcified samples of prostatic carcinoma metastatic to the bone is also statistically higher than that of PSA staining, when analyzed by the Chi-square test (Chi-square statistic: 10.56; P = 0.0012). When comparing PSMA and NKX3.1 positive staining, NKX3.1 tended to be diffusely positive at a higher frequency. However, this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that PSMA and NKX3.1 are more sensitive markers than PSA for mPCa to the bone following decalcification. We recommend use of PSMA and NKX3.1, rather than PSA, as the IHC markers to confirm mPCa to the bone.
BACKGROUND:Prostate specific antigen (PSA), prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA), and NKX3.1 are sensitive and prostate-specific markers frequently used for the diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). International Society of Urological Pathology recommends use of PSA as the initial immunohistochemical (IHC) marker to identify PCa. If the tumor is equivocal/weak/negative for PSA, then P501S and NKX3.1 stains are suggested. However, no specific studies have attempted to compare the staining sensitivity of these markers post specimen decalcification of bone specimens. In this study, we analyze the staining sensitivity of PSA, PSMA and NKX3.1 in bone specimens with mPCa after decalcification. DESIGN: We studied 24 cases of mPCa to the bone. All cases were decalcified for 24 to 48 hours prior to H&E staining and IHC workup. Eight cases were biopsies from vertebral bodies, five were from the femur, four came from the iliac bone, two were from ribs, three were from the pubic ramus, one was from the sacrum and one was from the skull. IHC staining pattern of PSA, PSMA and NKX3.1 was defined as follows: negative (no staining), focally positive (≤ 10%) and diffusely positive (≥ 10%). Focal and diffuse positivity are both considered positive. RESULTS:PSA was positive in 64% (14/22) cases, while PSMA and NKX3.1 were positive in all cases (17/17 and 24/24, respectively). The frequency of positive PSMA staining in decalcified samples of prostatic carcinoma metastatic to the bone is statistically higher than that of PSA staining, when analyzed by the Chi-square test (Chi-square statistic: 5.389; P = 0.0203). The frequency of positive NKX3.1 staining in decalcified samples of prostatic carcinoma metastatic to the bone is also statistically higher than that of PSA staining, when analyzed by the Chi-square test (Chi-square statistic: 10.56; P = 0.0012). When comparing PSMA and NKX3.1 positive staining, NKX3.1 tended to be diffusely positive at a higher frequency. However, this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that PSMA and NKX3.1 are more sensitive markers than PSA for mPCa to the bone following decalcification. We recommend use of PSMA and NKX3.1, rather than PSA, as the IHC markers to confirm mPCa to the bone.
Entities:
Keywords:
NKX3.1; PSMA; bone metastasis; prostatic carcinoma
Authors: Bora Gurel; Tehmina Z Ali; Elizabeth A Montgomery; Shahnaz Begum; Jessica Hicks; Michael Goggins; Charles G Eberhart; Douglas P Clark; Charles J Bieberich; Jonathan I Epstein; Angelo M De Marzo Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Maria C Tsourlakis; Franka Klein; Martina Kluth; Alexander Quaas; Markus Graefen; Alexander Haese; Ronald Simon; Guido Sauter; Thorsten Schlomm; Sarah Minner Journal: Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol Date: 2015-07
Authors: Sebastian Mannweiler; Peter Amersdorfer; Slave Trajanoski; Jonathan A Terrett; David King; Gabor Mehes Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 3.201
Authors: Carlise R Bethel; Dennis Faith; Xiang Li; Bin Guan; Jessica L Hicks; Fusheng Lan; Robert B Jenkins; Charles J Bieberich; Angelo M De Marzo Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2006-11-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: C Bowen; L Bubendorf; H J Voeller; R Slack; N Willi; G Sauter; T C Gasser; P Koivisto; E E Lack; J Kononen; O P Kallioniemi; E P Gelmann Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2000-11-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Martine P Roudier; Lawrence D True; Celestia S Higano; Hubert Vesselle; William Ellis; Paul Lange; Robert L Vessella Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: C Marchal; M Redondo; M Padilla; J Caballero; I Rodrigo; J García; J Quian; D G Boswick Journal: Histol Histopathol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Érica Romão Pereira; Laís Capelasso Lucas Pinheiro; Amanda Letícia Francelino; Carlos Alberto Miqueloto; Alda Fiorina Maria Losi Guembarovski; Karen Brajão de Oliveira; Paulo Emílio Fuganti; Ilce Mara de Syllos Cólus; Roberta Losi Guembarovski Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 4.322
Authors: Holger Moch; Alwin Krämer; Chantal Pauli; Tilmann Bochtler; Linda Mileshkin; Giulia Baciarello; Ferran Losa; Jeffrey S Ross; George Pentheroudakis; George Zarkavelis; Suayib Yalcin; Mustafa Özgüroğlu; Andreas Beringer; Jeremy Scarato; Mathis Mueller-Ohldach; Marlene Thomas Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-03-25