摘要
| 原文 | 英語 |
|---|---|
| 文章編號 | 25 |
| 期刊 | Journal of Translational Medicine |
| 卷 | 7 |
| DOIs | |
| 出版狀態 | 已發佈 - 四月 14 2009 |
| 對外發佈 | Yes |
指紋
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
- Medicine(all)
引用此文
Scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemistry based on either independent nucleic stain or mixed cytoplasmic with nucleic expression can significantly signal to distinguish between endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study. / Koo, Chiew Loon; Kok, Lai Fong; Lee, Ming Yung; Wu, Tina S.; Cheng, Ya Wen; Hsu, Jeng Dong; Ruan, Alexandra; Chao, Kuan Chong; Han, Chih Ping.
於: Journal of Translational Medicine, 卷 7, 25, 14.04.2009.研究成果: 雜誌貢獻 › 文章
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemistry based on either independent nucleic stain or mixed cytoplasmic with nucleic expression can significantly signal to distinguish between endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study
AU - Koo, Chiew Loon
AU - Kok, Lai Fong
AU - Lee, Ming Yung
AU - Wu, Tina S.
AU - Cheng, Ya Wen
AU - Hsu, Jeng Dong
AU - Ruan, Alexandra
AU - Chao, Kuan Chong
AU - Han, Chih Ping
PY - 2009/4/14
Y1 - 2009/4/14
N2 - Background: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that affect uterus; however, their biological behaviors are quite different. 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 3 different scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemical (IHC) staining in distinguishing between primary ECAs and EMAs. Methods: A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue from hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 24 EMAs. Tissue array sections were immunostained with a commercially available antibody of p16INK4a. Avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method was used for antigens visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the IHC reactions was evaluated using the semi-quantitative scoring system. The 3 scoring methods were defined on the bases of the following: (1) independent cytoplasmic staining alone (Method C), (2) independent nucleic staining alone (Method N), and (3) mean of the sum of cytoplasmic score plus nucleic score (Method Mean of C plus N). Results: Of the 3 scoring mechanisms for p16INK4a expression, Method N and Method Mean of C plus N showed significant (p-values <0.05), but Method C showed non-significant (p = 0.245) frequency differences between ECAs and EMAs. In addition, Method Mean of C plus N had the highest overall accuracy rate (81.6%) for diagnostic distinction among these 3 scoring methods. Conclusion: According to the data characteristics and test effectiveness in this study, Method N and Method Mean of C plus N can significantly signal to distinguish between ECAs and EMAs; while Method C cannot do. Method Mean of C plus N is the most promising and favorable means among the three scoring mechanisms.
AB - Background: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that affect uterus; however, their biological behaviors are quite different. 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 3 different scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemical (IHC) staining in distinguishing between primary ECAs and EMAs. Methods: A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue from hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 24 EMAs. Tissue array sections were immunostained with a commercially available antibody of p16INK4a. Avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method was used for antigens visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the IHC reactions was evaluated using the semi-quantitative scoring system. The 3 scoring methods were defined on the bases of the following: (1) independent cytoplasmic staining alone (Method C), (2) independent nucleic staining alone (Method N), and (3) mean of the sum of cytoplasmic score plus nucleic score (Method Mean of C plus N). Results: Of the 3 scoring mechanisms for p16INK4a expression, Method N and Method Mean of C plus N showed significant (p-values <0.05), but Method C showed non-significant (p = 0.245) frequency differences between ECAs and EMAs. In addition, Method Mean of C plus N had the highest overall accuracy rate (81.6%) for diagnostic distinction among these 3 scoring methods. Conclusion: According to the data characteristics and test effectiveness in this study, Method N and Method Mean of C plus N can significantly signal to distinguish between ECAs and EMAs; while Method C cannot do. Method Mean of C plus N is the most promising and favorable means among the three scoring mechanisms.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=65449133543&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=65449133543&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/1479-5876-7-25
DO - 10.1186/1479-5876-7-25
M3 - Article
C2 - 19366452
AN - SCOPUS:65449133543
VL - 7
JO - Journal of Translational Medicine
JF - Journal of Translational Medicine
SN - 1479-5876
M1 - 25
ER -