A reappraisal of three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA), four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR), and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels in the diagnostic distinction between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study

Chih Ping Han, Ming Yung Lee, Lai Fong Kok, Tina S. Wu, Ya Wen Cheng, Po Hui Wang, Chia Herng Yue, Yeu Sheng Tyan

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻文章

8 引文 (Scopus)

摘要

Background The choice of appropriate therapeutic plans for primary endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) depend on the tumor's site of origin. The purpose of this study was to compare the performances of the commonly used threemarker (ER/Vim/CEA), four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR) and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Methods A tissue microarray was constructed using paraYn-embedded, formalin-Wxed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. Utilizing the avidin-biotin (ABC) technique, tissue array sections were immunostained with five commercially available antibodies (ER, Vim, CEA, PR and p16INK4a) to evaluate the performances of their respective three-, four- and five-marker panels in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Results ER, PR and Vim were more likely to be expressed in EMA, while CEA and p16INK4a were frequently expressed in ECA. The three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel exhibits the most favorable performance in the distinction between these two gynecologic malignancies (ECA vs. EMA). Conclusion According to our data, when histomorphological and clinical doubt exists as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is sufficient, appropriate and useful in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA, instead of the four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR) and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels. Ancillary PR and p16INK4a add no supplementary value to the performance of the conventional three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel.
原文英語
頁(從 - 到)845-850
頁數6
期刊Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
281
發行號5
DOIs
出版狀態已發佈 - 五月 2010
對外發佈Yes

指紋

Adenocarcinoma
Avidin
Biotin
Hysterectomy
Formaldehyde
Neoplasms
Antibodies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology

引用此文

A reappraisal of three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA), four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR), and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels in the diagnostic distinction between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study. / Han, Chih Ping; Lee, Ming Yung; Kok, Lai Fong; Wu, Tina S.; Cheng, Ya Wen; Wang, Po Hui; Yue, Chia Herng; Tyan, Yeu Sheng.

於: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 卷 281, 編號 5, 05.2010, p. 845-850.

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻文章

@article{cdefa695de684030b3d99501d2644e78,
title = "A reappraisal of three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA), four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR), and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels in the diagnostic distinction between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study",
abstract = "Background The choice of appropriate therapeutic plans for primary endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) depend on the tumor's site of origin. The purpose of this study was to compare the performances of the commonly used threemarker (ER/Vim/CEA), four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR) and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Methods A tissue microarray was constructed using paraYn-embedded, formalin-Wxed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. Utilizing the avidin-biotin (ABC) technique, tissue array sections were immunostained with five commercially available antibodies (ER, Vim, CEA, PR and p16INK4a) to evaluate the performances of their respective three-, four- and five-marker panels in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Results ER, PR and Vim were more likely to be expressed in EMA, while CEA and p16INK4a were frequently expressed in ECA. The three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel exhibits the most favorable performance in the distinction between these two gynecologic malignancies (ECA vs. EMA). Conclusion According to our data, when histomorphological and clinical doubt exists as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is sufficient, appropriate and useful in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA, instead of the four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR) and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels. Ancillary PR and p16INK4a add no supplementary value to the performance of the conventional three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel.",
author = "Han, {Chih Ping} and Lee, {Ming Yung} and Kok, {Lai Fong} and Wu, {Tina S.} and Cheng, {Ya Wen} and Wang, {Po Hui} and Yue, {Chia Herng} and Tyan, {Yeu Sheng}",
year = "2010",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1007/s00404-009-1151-8",
language = "English",
volume = "281",
pages = "845--850",
journal = "Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics",
issn = "0932-0067",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A reappraisal of three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA), four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR), and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels in the diagnostic distinction between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study

AU - Han, Chih Ping

AU - Lee, Ming Yung

AU - Kok, Lai Fong

AU - Wu, Tina S.

AU - Cheng, Ya Wen

AU - Wang, Po Hui

AU - Yue, Chia Herng

AU - Tyan, Yeu Sheng

PY - 2010/5

Y1 - 2010/5

N2 - Background The choice of appropriate therapeutic plans for primary endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) depend on the tumor's site of origin. The purpose of this study was to compare the performances of the commonly used threemarker (ER/Vim/CEA), four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR) and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Methods A tissue microarray was constructed using paraYn-embedded, formalin-Wxed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. Utilizing the avidin-biotin (ABC) technique, tissue array sections were immunostained with five commercially available antibodies (ER, Vim, CEA, PR and p16INK4a) to evaluate the performances of their respective three-, four- and five-marker panels in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Results ER, PR and Vim were more likely to be expressed in EMA, while CEA and p16INK4a were frequently expressed in ECA. The three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel exhibits the most favorable performance in the distinction between these two gynecologic malignancies (ECA vs. EMA). Conclusion According to our data, when histomorphological and clinical doubt exists as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is sufficient, appropriate and useful in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA, instead of the four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR) and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels. Ancillary PR and p16INK4a add no supplementary value to the performance of the conventional three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel.

AB - Background The choice of appropriate therapeutic plans for primary endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) depend on the tumor's site of origin. The purpose of this study was to compare the performances of the commonly used threemarker (ER/Vim/CEA), four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR) and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Methods A tissue microarray was constructed using paraYn-embedded, formalin-Wxed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. Utilizing the avidin-biotin (ABC) technique, tissue array sections were immunostained with five commercially available antibodies (ER, Vim, CEA, PR and p16INK4a) to evaluate the performances of their respective three-, four- and five-marker panels in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Results ER, PR and Vim were more likely to be expressed in EMA, while CEA and p16INK4a were frequently expressed in ECA. The three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel exhibits the most favorable performance in the distinction between these two gynecologic malignancies (ECA vs. EMA). Conclusion According to our data, when histomorphological and clinical doubt exists as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is sufficient, appropriate and useful in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA, instead of the four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR) and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels. Ancillary PR and p16INK4a add no supplementary value to the performance of the conventional three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77950604655&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77950604655&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00404-009-1151-8

DO - 10.1007/s00404-009-1151-8

M3 - Article

C2 - 19847454

AN - SCOPUS:77950604655

VL - 281

SP - 845

EP - 850

JO - Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

JF - Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

SN - 0932-0067

IS - 5

ER -