Immunohistochemical Staining in the Assessment of Melanoma Tumor Thickness
- 15 Downloads
Vertical tumor thickness has great influence in the prognosis and staging of melanoma. The aim of this study was determination of the differences between melanoma tumor thickness in conventional hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and immunohistochemical techniques. Thirty-six biopsy specimens were included in our study. For each sample, four adjacent tissue sections were stained with H&E, in addition S-100, Melan- A and HMB-45 staining was performed on the next serial sections. The mean thickness of tumor invasion was 2.16, 2.38, 2.22 and 2.29 mm in H&E, S-100, HMB45 and Melan-A sections evaluation, respectively. The mean difference of the Breslow thickness between H&E and S-100 and also, between H&E and Melan-A stained slides were statistically significant (p˂0.05) while no difference was found in the tumor thickness of the H&E and HMB45 staining evaluation (p = 0.278). Greater tumor thickness was observed in 25 lesions (69.4%) with S-100, 20 lesions (55.5%) with Melan-A and 17 (47.2%) lesions in HMB-45 rather than H&E staining. Conclusively, it appears that H&E staining cannot prove the actual size of melanoma invasion in some cases and immunohistochemical examination can be a complementary method in this situations. Of the melanoma associated immunomarkers, the combination of S-100 and Melan-A staining may suffice to measure depth of tumor invasion.
KeywordsMelanoma Breslow thickness Immunohistochemical staining
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
There is no conflict of interest to declare.
- 1.Breslow A (1980) Prognosis in cutaneous melanoma: tumor thickness as a guide to treatment. Pathol Annu 15:1–22Google Scholar
- 2.Shaikh WR, Dusza SW, Weinstock MA et al (2015) Melanoma thickness and survival trends in the United States, 1989–2009. J Natl Cancer Inst 12:108(1)Google Scholar
- 4.Haydu LE, Stollman JT, Scolyer RA, Spillane AJ, Quinn MJ, Saw RPM, Shannon KF, Stretch JR, Bonenkamp JJ, Thompson JF (2016) Minimum safe pathologic excision margins for primary cutaneous melanomas (1–2 mm in thickness): analysis of 2131 patients treated at a single center. Ann Surg Oncol 23:1071–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Hurt MA, Santa Cruz DJ (1994) Malignant melanoma microstaging. History, premises, methods, problems, and recommendations—a call for standardization. Pathol Annu 29:51–74Google Scholar
- 9.Buzaid AC, Gershenwald JE, Atkins MB, Ross ME (2016) Tumor node metastasis (TNM) staging system and other prognostic factors in cutaneous melanoma. UpToDate. UpToDate, WalthamGoogle Scholar
- 12.Orchard GE (1998) Melan A (MART-1): a new monoclonal antibody for malignant melanoma diagnosis. Br J Biomed Sci 55:8–9Google Scholar
- 16.de Vries TJ, Smeets M, de Graaf R, Hou-Jensen K, Bröcker EB, Renard N, Eggermont AMM, van Muijen GNP, Ruiter DJ (2001) Expression of gp100, MART-1, tyrosinase, and S100 in paraffin-embedded primary melanomas and locoregional lymph node, and visceral metastases: implications for diagnosis and immunotherapy. A study conducted by the EORTC melanoma cooperative group. J Pathol 193:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Kim RH, Meehan SA (2017) Immunostain use in the diagnosis of melanomas referred to a tertiary medical center: a 15-year retrospective review (2001–2015). J Cutan Pathol 44:221–227Google Scholar
- 19.Flügge G, Rassner G (1989) Demonstration of S 100 protein in malignant melanoma of the skin. Pattern of distribution and significance for determination of tumor thickness. Hautarzt. 40:290–295Google Scholar