Jae-Han Jeong1, Jung-Soo Pyo2, Nae-Yu Kim3, Dong-Wook Kang4,5. 1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Chosun University Hospital, Chosun University School of Medicine, Gwangju 61453, Korea. 2. Department of Pathology, Daejeon Eulji University Hospial, Eulji University School of Medicine, Daejeon 35233, Korea. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Daejeon Eulji University Hospital, Eulji University School of Medicine, Daejeon 35233, Korea. 4. Department of Pathology, Chungnam National University Sejong Hospital, 20 Bodeum 7-ro, Sejong 30099, Korea. 5. Department of Pathology, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, 266 Munhwa Street, Daejeon 35015, Korea.
Abstract
Background: The present study aims to evaluate the diagnostic roles of various immunohistochemical (IHC) markers in thymic tumors, including thymic carcinoma (TC) and thymoma (TM). Methods: Eligible studies were obtained by searching the PubMed databases and screening the searched articles. Thirty-eight articles were used in the present meta-analysis and included 636 TCs and 1861 TMs. Besides, for IHC markers with statistical significance, a diagnostic test accuracy review was performed. Results: The comparison of various IHC expressions between TC and TM was performed for 32 IHC markers. Among these IHC markers, there were significant differences between TC and TM for beta-5t, B-cell lymphoma 2 (Bcl-2), calretinin, CD1a, CD5, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cytokeratin19 (CK19), CD117, glucose transporter 1 (Glut-1), insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R), mesothelin, MOC31, mucin1 (MUC1), p21, and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT). Markers with higher expressions in TCs were Bcl-2, calretinin, CD5, CEA, CD117, Glut-1, IGF-1R, mesothelin, MOC31, MUC1, and p21. Among these markers, there were no significant differences between TC and TM type B3 in immunohistochemistries for Bcl-2 and CK19. On the other hand, β-catenin and CD205 showed a considerable difference in IHC expressions between TC and TM type B3, but not between TC and overall TM. In diagnostic test accuracy review, MUC1 and beta-5t were the most useful markers for TC and TM, respectively. Conclusions: Taken together, our results showed that the expression rates for various IHC markers significantly differed between TC and TM. The IHC panel can be useful for differentiation from limited biopsied specimens in daily practice.
Background: The present study aims to evaluate the diagnostic roles of various immunohistochemical (IHC) markers in thymic tumors, including thymic carcinoma (TC) and thymoma (TM). Methods: Eligible studies were obtained by searching the PubMed databases and screening the searched articles. Thirty-eight articles were used in the present meta-analysis and included 636 TCs and 1861 TMs. Besides, for IHC markers with statistical significance, a diagnostic test accuracy review was performed. Results: The comparison of various IHC expressions between TC and TM was performed for 32 IHC markers. Among these IHC markers, there were significant differences between TC and TM for beta-5t, B-cell lymphoma 2 (Bcl-2), calretinin, CD1a, CD5, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), cytokeratin19 (CK19), CD117, glucose transporter 1 (Glut-1), insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R), mesothelin, MOC31, mucin1 (MUC1), p21, and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase (TdT). Markers with higher expressions in TCs were Bcl-2, calretinin, CD5, CEA, CD117, Glut-1, IGF-1R, mesothelin, MOC31, MUC1, and p21. Among these markers, there were no significant differences between TC and TM type B3 in immunohistochemistries for Bcl-2 and CK19. On the other hand, β-catenin and CD205 showed a considerable difference in IHC expressions between TC and TM type B3, but not between TC and overall TM. In diagnostic test accuracy review, MUC1 and beta-5t were the most useful markers for TC and TM, respectively. Conclusions: Taken together, our results showed that the expression rates for various IHC markers significantly differed between TC and TM. The IHC panel can be useful for differentiation from limited biopsied specimens in daily practice.
Authors: Mounika Angirekula; Sindy Y Chang; Sarah M Jenkins; Patricia T Greipp; William R Sukov; Randolph S Marks; Kenneth R Olivier; Stephen D Cassivi; Anja C Roden Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 6.575