Author:
Khoury Thaer,Tan Dongfeng,Wang Jianmin,Intengan Marilyn,Yang Jun,Alrawi Sadir,Yan Peisha,Byrd James C
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Distinguishing endocervical adenocarcinoma (ECA) from endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma (EMMA) is clinically significant in view of the differences in their management and prognosis. In this study, we used a panel of tumor markers to determine their ability to distinguish between primary endocervical adenocarcinoma and primary endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma.
Methods
Immunohistochemistry using monoclonal antibodies to MUC1 (Ma695), p16, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and vimentin, was performed to examine 32 cases, including 18 EMMAs and 14 ECAs. For MUC1, cases were scored based on the percentage of staining pattern, apical, apical and cytoplasmic (A/C), or negative. For p16, cases were scored based on the percentage of cells stained. For the rest of the antibodies, semiquantitative scoring system was carried out.
Results
For MUC1, majority of EMMA (14 of 18 cases, 78%) showed A/C staining, whereas only few ECA (2 of 14, 14%) were positive. The difference of MUC1 expression in the two groups of malignancy was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Staining for p16 was positive in 10 of 14 (71%) ECA and 4 of 18 (22%) EMMA. Estrogen receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 17 of 18 (94%) EMMA. Progesterone receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 16 of 18 (89%) EMMA. Vimentin was positive in 1 of 14 (7%) ECA, and 9 of 18 (50%) EMA, with median and range of 0 (0–6), and 1.5 (0–9) respectively.
Conclusion
A panel of immunohistochemical markers including MUC1, p16, ER, PR, and vimentin is recommended, when there is morphological and clinical doubt as to the primary site of endocervical or endometrial origin.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Histology,Pathology and Forensic Medicine
Reference39 articles.
1. Berek JS, Hacker NV: cervical cancer, and uterine cancer. Practical Gynecologic Oncology. Edited by: Lippincott Williams, Wilkins. 2000, Philadelphia, 354: 421-3
2. Hoskins WJ, Perez CA, Young RC: uterine cervix, and corpus: epithelial tumors. Principles and Practice of Gynecologic Oncology. Edited by: Lippincott JB. 2005, Philadelphia, 763: 843-4
3. Kamoi S, AlJuboury MI, Akin M, Silverberg SG: Immunohistochemical staining in the distinction between primary endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinomas: Another viewpoint. Int J Gyn Pathol. 2002, 21: 217-223. 10.1097/00004347-200207000-00003.
4. McCluggage WG, Sumathi VP, McBride HA, Patterson A: A panel of immunohistochemical stains including carcinoembryonic antigen, vimentin, and estrogen receptor aids in the distinction between primary endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinomas. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2002, 21: 11-5. 10.1097/00004347-200201000-00003.
5. Zaino RJ: The fruits of our labors: distinguishing endometrial from endocervical adenocarcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2002, 21: 1-3. 10.1097/00004347-200201000-00001.