Adding the p16INK4a marker to the traditional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel engenders no supplemental benefit in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study

Chih Ping Han, Ming Yung Lee, Lai Fong Kok, Alexandra Ruan, Tina S. Wu, Ya Wen Cheng, Yeu Sheng Tyan, Ching Yi Lin

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻文章

15 引文 (Scopus)

摘要

Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that affect the uterus; however, their biologic behaviors are quite different. This distinction has clinical significance, because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. In this study, we not only compare the individual expression status of 4 immunomarkers [estrogen receptor (ER), vimentin (Vim), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and p16], but also evaluate whether p16 adds value to the ER/Vim/CEA panel characteristics and performance in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 38 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 24 EMAs. Tissue microarray sections were immunostained with 4 antibodies, by the avidin-biotin complex method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemical reactions were evaluated using the semiquantitative scoring system. The 3 markers (ER, Vim, CEA) and their respective panel expressions showed statistically significant (P<0.05) frequency differences in ECA and EMA tumors. The p16 marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (P<0.05) between ECA and EMA, but did not demonstrate any supplementary benefit to the traditional 3-marker panel. In conclusion, when histomorphologic and clinical doubt exist as to the primary site of origin, we suggest that the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is appropriate. Ancillary p16-marker testing does not add value to the 3-marker panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. © 2009 International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.
原文英語
頁(從 - 到)489-496
頁數8
期刊International Journal of Gynecological Pathology
28
發行號5
DOIs
出版狀態已發佈 - 九月 2009
對外發佈Yes

指紋

Carcinoembryonic Antigen
Vimentin
Estrogen Receptors
Adenocarcinoma
Neoplasms
Avidin
Biotin
Hysterectomy
Paraffin
Formaldehyde
Uterus
Staining and Labeling

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Obstetrics and Gynaecology

引用此文

Adding the p16INK4a marker to the traditional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel engenders no supplemental benefit in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study. / Han, Chih Ping; Lee, Ming Yung; Kok, Lai Fong; Ruan, Alexandra; Wu, Tina S.; Cheng, Ya Wen; Tyan, Yeu Sheng; Lin, Ching Yi.

於: International Journal of Gynecological Pathology, 卷 28, 編號 5, 09.2009, p. 489-496.

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻文章

Han, Chih Ping ; Lee, Ming Yung ; Kok, Lai Fong ; Ruan, Alexandra ; Wu, Tina S. ; Cheng, Ya Wen ; Tyan, Yeu Sheng ; Lin, Ching Yi. / Adding the p16INK4a marker to the traditional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel engenders no supplemental benefit in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study. 於: International Journal of Gynecological Pathology. 2009 ; 卷 28, 編號 5. 頁 489-496.
@article{2f368f7d22bc49c3848a93e2117f1a9a,
title = "Adding the p16INK4a marker to the traditional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel engenders no supplemental benefit in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study",
abstract = "Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that affect the uterus; however, their biologic behaviors are quite different. This distinction has clinical significance, because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. In this study, we not only compare the individual expression status of 4 immunomarkers [estrogen receptor (ER), vimentin (Vim), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and p16], but also evaluate whether p16 adds value to the ER/Vim/CEA panel characteristics and performance in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 38 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 24 EMAs. Tissue microarray sections were immunostained with 4 antibodies, by the avidin-biotin complex method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemical reactions were evaluated using the semiquantitative scoring system. The 3 markers (ER, Vim, CEA) and their respective panel expressions showed statistically significant (P<0.05) frequency differences in ECA and EMA tumors. The p16 marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (P<0.05) between ECA and EMA, but did not demonstrate any supplementary benefit to the traditional 3-marker panel. In conclusion, when histomorphologic and clinical doubt exist as to the primary site of origin, we suggest that the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is appropriate. Ancillary p16-marker testing does not add value to the 3-marker panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. {\circledC} 2009 International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.",
keywords = "Carcinoembryonic antigen, Endocervical adenocarcinomas, Endometrial adenocarcinomas, Estrogen receptor, Immunohistochemistry, p16, Tissue microarray, Vimentin",
author = "Han, {Chih Ping} and Lee, {Ming Yung} and Kok, {Lai Fong} and Alexandra Ruan and Wu, {Tina S.} and Cheng, {Ya Wen} and Tyan, {Yeu Sheng} and Lin, {Ching Yi}",
year = "2009",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1097/PGP.0b013e31819e8ab4",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "489--496",
journal = "International Journal of Gynecological Pathology",
issn = "0277-1691",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adding the p16INK4a marker to the traditional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel engenders no supplemental benefit in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study

AU - Han, Chih Ping

AU - Lee, Ming Yung

AU - Kok, Lai Fong

AU - Ruan, Alexandra

AU - Wu, Tina S.

AU - Cheng, Ya Wen

AU - Tyan, Yeu Sheng

AU - Lin, Ching Yi

PY - 2009/9

Y1 - 2009/9

N2 - Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that affect the uterus; however, their biologic behaviors are quite different. This distinction has clinical significance, because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. In this study, we not only compare the individual expression status of 4 immunomarkers [estrogen receptor (ER), vimentin (Vim), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and p16], but also evaluate whether p16 adds value to the ER/Vim/CEA panel characteristics and performance in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 38 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 24 EMAs. Tissue microarray sections were immunostained with 4 antibodies, by the avidin-biotin complex method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemical reactions were evaluated using the semiquantitative scoring system. The 3 markers (ER, Vim, CEA) and their respective panel expressions showed statistically significant (P<0.05) frequency differences in ECA and EMA tumors. The p16 marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (P<0.05) between ECA and EMA, but did not demonstrate any supplementary benefit to the traditional 3-marker panel. In conclusion, when histomorphologic and clinical doubt exist as to the primary site of origin, we suggest that the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is appropriate. Ancillary p16-marker testing does not add value to the 3-marker panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. © 2009 International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.

AB - Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that affect the uterus; however, their biologic behaviors are quite different. This distinction has clinical significance, because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. In this study, we not only compare the individual expression status of 4 immunomarkers [estrogen receptor (ER), vimentin (Vim), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and p16], but also evaluate whether p16 adds value to the ER/Vim/CEA panel characteristics and performance in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 38 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 24 EMAs. Tissue microarray sections were immunostained with 4 antibodies, by the avidin-biotin complex method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemical reactions were evaluated using the semiquantitative scoring system. The 3 markers (ER, Vim, CEA) and their respective panel expressions showed statistically significant (P<0.05) frequency differences in ECA and EMA tumors. The p16 marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (P<0.05) between ECA and EMA, but did not demonstrate any supplementary benefit to the traditional 3-marker panel. In conclusion, when histomorphologic and clinical doubt exist as to the primary site of origin, we suggest that the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is appropriate. Ancillary p16-marker testing does not add value to the 3-marker panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. © 2009 International Society of Gynecological Pathologists.

KW - Carcinoembryonic antigen

KW - Endocervical adenocarcinomas

KW - Endometrial adenocarcinomas

KW - Estrogen receptor

KW - Immunohistochemistry

KW - p16

KW - Tissue microarray

KW - Vimentin

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67651220162&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67651220162&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/PGP.0b013e31819e8ab4

DO - 10.1097/PGP.0b013e31819e8ab4

M3 - Article

C2 - 19696622

AN - SCOPUS:67651220162

VL - 28

SP - 489

EP - 496

JO - International Journal of Gynecological Pathology

JF - International Journal of Gynecological Pathology

SN - 0277-1691

IS - 5

ER -