Comparing the scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemistry based on independent nucleic stains and independent cytoplasmic stains in distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study

Lai Fong Kok, Ming Yung Lee, Yeu Sheng Tyan, Tina S. Wu, Ya Wen Cheng, Mei Fen Kung, Po Hui Wang, Chih Ping Han

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that aVect the uterus; however, their biological behaviors are quite diVerent. This distinction has clinical significance because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. The purpose of this study is to evaluate two diVerent scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemical (IHC) stain in distinguishing between primary ECAs and EMAs. Methods A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using formalin-Wxed, paraYn-embedded tissue from hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 21 EMAs. Tissue array sections were stained with a commercially available antibody, p16INK4a. The avidin-biotin complex method was used to visualize antigens. The staining intensity and extent of the IHC reactions were evaluated using a semi-quantitative scoring system. Two scoring methods were deWned on the following bases: (1) independent cytoplasmic staining alone, irrespective of nucleic stain (Method C) and (2) independent nucleic staining alone, irrespective of cytoplasmic staining. (Method N). Results Of the two scoring mechanisms for p16INK4a expression, Method N showed a signiWcant divergence (P = 0.015), but Method C showed no signiWcant (P = 0.432) frequency diVerences in distinguishing between ECAs and EMAs. However, Method N had a higher overall accuracy rate (71.4%) in accurately diagnosing ECAs from EMAs in the total number of p16INK4a IHC cases. Conclusion According to the data of p16INK4a expression in this TMA study, Method N is favorable and eYcient in distinguishing between ECAs and EMAs, while Method C is not.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)293-300
Number of pages8
JournalArchives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
Volume281
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Adenocarcinoma
Coloring Agents
Immunohistochemistry
Staining and Labeling
Avidin
Biotin
Hysterectomy
Formaldehyde
Uterus
Neoplasms
Research Design
Antigens
Antibodies

Keywords

  • Avidin-biotin complex method
  • Endocervical adenocarcinomas
  • Endometrial adenocarcinomas
  • Immunohistochemistry
  • Independent cytoplasmic staining alone
  • Independent nucleic staining alone
  • P16
  • Tissue microarray

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Cite this

Comparing the scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemistry based on independent nucleic stains and independent cytoplasmic stains in distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study. / Kok, Lai Fong; Lee, Ming Yung; Tyan, Yeu Sheng; Wu, Tina S.; Cheng, Ya Wen; Kung, Mei Fen; Wang, Po Hui; Han, Chih Ping.

In: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Vol. 281, No. 2, 02.2010, p. 293-300.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4fc15bc40ef14752a84ae39aeadb86b1,
title = "Comparing the scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemistry based on independent nucleic stains and independent cytoplasmic stains in distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study",
abstract = "Background Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that aVect the uterus; however, their biological behaviors are quite diVerent. This distinction has clinical significance because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. The purpose of this study is to evaluate two diVerent scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemical (IHC) stain in distinguishing between primary ECAs and EMAs. Methods A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using formalin-Wxed, paraYn-embedded tissue from hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 21 EMAs. Tissue array sections were stained with a commercially available antibody, p16INK4a. The avidin-biotin complex method was used to visualize antigens. The staining intensity and extent of the IHC reactions were evaluated using a semi-quantitative scoring system. Two scoring methods were deWned on the following bases: (1) independent cytoplasmic staining alone, irrespective of nucleic stain (Method C) and (2) independent nucleic staining alone, irrespective of cytoplasmic staining. (Method N). Results Of the two scoring mechanisms for p16INK4a expression, Method N showed a signiWcant divergence (P = 0.015), but Method C showed no signiWcant (P = 0.432) frequency diVerences in distinguishing between ECAs and EMAs. However, Method N had a higher overall accuracy rate (71.4{\%}) in accurately diagnosing ECAs from EMAs in the total number of p16INK4a IHC cases. Conclusion According to the data of p16INK4a expression in this TMA study, Method N is favorable and eYcient in distinguishing between ECAs and EMAs, while Method C is not.",
keywords = "Avidin-biotin complex method, Endocervical adenocarcinomas, Endometrial adenocarcinomas, Immunohistochemistry, Independent cytoplasmic staining alone, Independent nucleic staining alone, P16, Tissue microarray",
author = "Kok, {Lai Fong} and Lee, {Ming Yung} and Tyan, {Yeu Sheng} and Wu, {Tina S.} and Cheng, {Ya Wen} and Kung, {Mei Fen} and Wang, {Po Hui} and Han, {Chih Ping}",
year = "2010",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1007/s00404-009-1094-0",
language = "English",
volume = "281",
pages = "293--300",
journal = "Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics",
issn = "0932-0067",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing the scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemistry based on independent nucleic stains and independent cytoplasmic stains in distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study

AU - Kok, Lai Fong

AU - Lee, Ming Yung

AU - Tyan, Yeu Sheng

AU - Wu, Tina S.

AU - Cheng, Ya Wen

AU - Kung, Mei Fen

AU - Wang, Po Hui

AU - Han, Chih Ping

PY - 2010/2

Y1 - 2010/2

N2 - Background Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that aVect the uterus; however, their biological behaviors are quite diVerent. This distinction has clinical significance because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. The purpose of this study is to evaluate two diVerent scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemical (IHC) stain in distinguishing between primary ECAs and EMAs. Methods A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using formalin-Wxed, paraYn-embedded tissue from hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 21 EMAs. Tissue array sections were stained with a commercially available antibody, p16INK4a. The avidin-biotin complex method was used to visualize antigens. The staining intensity and extent of the IHC reactions were evaluated using a semi-quantitative scoring system. Two scoring methods were deWned on the following bases: (1) independent cytoplasmic staining alone, irrespective of nucleic stain (Method C) and (2) independent nucleic staining alone, irrespective of cytoplasmic staining. (Method N). Results Of the two scoring mechanisms for p16INK4a expression, Method N showed a signiWcant divergence (P = 0.015), but Method C showed no signiWcant (P = 0.432) frequency diVerences in distinguishing between ECAs and EMAs. However, Method N had a higher overall accuracy rate (71.4%) in accurately diagnosing ECAs from EMAs in the total number of p16INK4a IHC cases. Conclusion According to the data of p16INK4a expression in this TMA study, Method N is favorable and eYcient in distinguishing between ECAs and EMAs, while Method C is not.

AB - Background Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that aVect the uterus; however, their biological behaviors are quite diVerent. This distinction has clinical significance because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. The purpose of this study is to evaluate two diVerent scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemical (IHC) stain in distinguishing between primary ECAs and EMAs. Methods A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using formalin-Wxed, paraYn-embedded tissue from hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 21 EMAs. Tissue array sections were stained with a commercially available antibody, p16INK4a. The avidin-biotin complex method was used to visualize antigens. The staining intensity and extent of the IHC reactions were evaluated using a semi-quantitative scoring system. Two scoring methods were deWned on the following bases: (1) independent cytoplasmic staining alone, irrespective of nucleic stain (Method C) and (2) independent nucleic staining alone, irrespective of cytoplasmic staining. (Method N). Results Of the two scoring mechanisms for p16INK4a expression, Method N showed a signiWcant divergence (P = 0.015), but Method C showed no signiWcant (P = 0.432) frequency diVerences in distinguishing between ECAs and EMAs. However, Method N had a higher overall accuracy rate (71.4%) in accurately diagnosing ECAs from EMAs in the total number of p16INK4a IHC cases. Conclusion According to the data of p16INK4a expression in this TMA study, Method N is favorable and eYcient in distinguishing between ECAs and EMAs, while Method C is not.

KW - Avidin-biotin complex method

KW - Endocervical adenocarcinomas

KW - Endometrial adenocarcinomas

KW - Immunohistochemistry

KW - Independent cytoplasmic staining alone

KW - Independent nucleic staining alone

KW - P16

KW - Tissue microarray

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77950342159&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77950342159&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00404-009-1094-0

DO - 10.1007/s00404-009-1094-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 19418062

AN - SCOPUS:77950342159

VL - 281

SP - 293

EP - 300

JO - Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

JF - Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

SN - 0932-0067

IS - 2

ER -