Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Five commonly used markers (p53, TTF1, CK7, CK20, and CK34βE12) are of no use in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray extension study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The choice of appropriate therapeutic plans for primary endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) depends on the tumor’s site of origin. Some panels of antibodies help to distinguish primary ECA from EMA. However, unexpected expressions of those markers often exist, which causes this diagnostic dilemma to be still unresolved. In this study, we investigate five commonly used monoclonal antibodies (p53, TTF1, CK7, CK20, and CK34βE12) to evaluate their potential use in distinguishing between these two gynecologic malignancies.

Methods

A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. Utilizing the avidin–biotin (ABC) technique, tissue array sections were immunostained with the five aforementioned commercially available antibodies.

Results

Immunohistochemical (IHC) expressions of p53, TTF1, CK7, CK20, and CK34βE12 were all nonsignificant (P > 0.05) in frequency differences between the immunostaining results (positive vs. negative) in tumors from both the two primary adenocarcinomas (ECA vs. EMA).

Conclusion

It is still uncertain which markers or panels would be the most appropriate for making diagnoses; hence, exploration of other useful markers, which make a definitive distinction between ECA and EMA merits further studies. This study, however, uncovered that the five commonly used monoclonal antibodies (p53, TTF1, CK7, CK20, and CK34βE12) are of no beneficial value in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. Lurain JR, Bidus MA, Elkas JC (2007) Uterine cancer, cervical and vaginal cancer. In: Berek RS (ed) Novak’s gynecology, 14th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (LWW), Philadelphia, pp 1343–1402

    Google Scholar 

  2. Schorge JO, Knowles LM, Lea JS (2004) Adenocarcinoma of the cervix. Curr Treat Options Oncol 5:119–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yao CC, Kok LF, Lee MY, Wang PH, Wu TS, Tyan YS et al (2009) Ancillary p16(INK4a) adds no meaningful value to the performance of ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study. Arch Gynecol Obstet [Epub ahead of print]

  4. Han CP, Lee MY, Kok LF, Ruan A, Wu TS, Cheng YW et al (2009) Aditional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel engenders no supplemental benefit in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study. Int J Gynecol Pathol (in publication)

  5. Han CP, Kok LF, Wang PH, Wu TS, Tyan YS, Cheng YW, Lee MY, Yang SF (2009) Scoring of p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry based on independent nuclear staining alone can sufficiently distinguish between endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study. Mod Pathol [Epub ahead of print]

  6. Dabbs DJ, Sturtz K, Zaino RJ (1996) Distinguishing endometrial from endocervical adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol 27:172–177

    Google Scholar 

  7. Castrillon DH, Lee KR, Nucci MR (2002) Distinction between endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinoma: an immunohistochemical study. Int J Gynecol Pathol 21:4–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McCluggage WG, Sumathi VP, McBride HA, Patterson A (2002) A panel of immunohistochemical stains, including carcinoembryonic antigen, vimentin, and estrogen receptor, aids the distinction between primary endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinomas. Int J Gynecol Pathol 21:11–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Alkushi A, Irving J, Hsu F, Dupuis B, Liu CL, Rijn M, Gilks CB (2003) Immunoprofile of cervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas using a tissue microarray. Virchows Arch 442:271–277

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wehling M (2008) Translational medicine: science or wishful thinking? J Transl Med 6:31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McHugh M (1995) P53 expression in endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. Int J Surg Pathol 2:269–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McCluggage G, McBride H, Maxwell P, Bharucha H (1997) Immunohistochemical detection of p53 and bcl-2 proteins in neoplastic and non-neoplastic endocervical glandular lesions. Int J Gynecol Pathol 16:22–27

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Siami K, McCluggage WG, Ordonez NG, Euscher ED, Malpica A, Sneige N, Silva EG, Deavers MT (2007) Thyroid transcription factor-1 expression in endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol 31:1759–1763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Park KJ, Bramlage MP, Ellenson LH, Pirog EC (2009) Immunoprofile of adenocarcinomas of the endometrium, endocervix, and ovary with mucinous differentiation. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 17:8–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Remmele W, Schicketanz KH (1993) Immunohistochemical determination of estrogen and progesterone receptor content in human breast cancer. Computer-assisted image analysis (QIC score) vs. subjective grading (IRS). Pathol Res Pract 189:862–866

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Matos LL, Stabenow E, Tavares MR, Ferraz AR, Capelozzi VL, Pinhal MA (2006) Immunohistochemistry quantification by a digital computer-assisted method compared to semiquantitative analysis. Clinics 61:417–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Camp RL, Chung GG, Rimm DL (2002) Automated subcellular localization and quantification of protein expression in tissue microarrays. Nat Med 8:1323–1327

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cregger M, Berger AJ, Rimm DL (2006) Immunohistochemistry and quantitative analysis of protein expression. Arch Pathol Lab Med 130:1026–1030

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zweig MH, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39:561–577

    Google Scholar 

  20. Metz CE (1978) Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med 8:283–298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Han CP, Lee MY, Tzeng SL, Yao CC, Wang PH, Cheng YW, Chen SL, Wu TS, Tyan YS, Kok LF (2008) Nuclear Receptor Interaction Protein (NRIP) expression assay using human tissue microarray and immunohistochemistry technology confirming nuclear localization. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 27:25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Koo CL, Kok LF, Lee MY, Wu TS, Cheng YW, Hsu JD, Ruan A, Chao KC, Han CP (2009) 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. J Transl Med 7:25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kamoi S, AlJuboury MI, Akin MR, Silverberg SG (2002) Immunohistochemical staining in the distinction between primary endometrial and endocervical adenocarcinomas: another viewpoint. Int J Gynecol Pathol 21:217–223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Khoury T, Tan D, Wang J, Intengan M, Yang J, Alrawi S, Yan P, Byrd JC (2006) Inclusion of MUC1 (Ma695) in a panel of immunohistochemical markers is useful for distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma. BMC Clin Pathol 6:1

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Reid-Nicholson M, Iyengar P, Hummer AJ, Linkov I, Asher M, Soslow RA (2006) Immunophenotypic diversity of endometrial adenocarcinomas: implications for differential diagnosis. Mod Pathol 19:1091–1100

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vallmanya Llena FR, Laborda Rodríguez A, Lloreta Trull J, Cortadellas Angel R, Placer Santos J, Mas Gelabert A (2006) Immunohistochemical expression of p53, p21, p16, and cyclin D1 in superficial bladder cancer. A tissue microarray study. Actas Urol Esp 30:754–762

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang PJ, Gao HG, Pasha TL, Litzky L, Livolsi VA (2009) TTF-1 expression in ovarian and uterine epithelial neoplasia and its potential significance, an immunohistochemical assessment with multiple monoclonal antibodies and different secondary detection systems. Int J Gynecol Pathol 28:10–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Grayson W (2003) Mini-Symposium: immunohistologyingynaecological pathology: application of immunohistochemistry in the evaluation of neoplastic epithelial lesions of the uterine cervix and endometrium. Current Diagn Pathol 9:19–25. http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0968-6053/PIIS0968605302901523.pdf

  29. Hadi Y, Allen MG (2001) Immunohistochemical analysis of gynecologic tumors. Int J Gyn Pathol 20:64–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang NP, Zee S, Zarbo RJ, Bacchi CE, Gown AM (1995) Coordinate expression of cytokeratins 7 and 20 defines unique subsets of carcinomas. Appl Immunohistochem 3:99–107

    Google Scholar 

  31. Yeh IT, Mies C (2007) Application of immunohistochemistry to breast lesions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 132:349–358

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in parts by grants from Department of Health (DOH98-PAB-1001-E and DOH98-PAB-1009-I) and Chung-Shan Medical University, Taiwan, ROC.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chung-Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan

    Chih-Ping Han & Po-Hui Wang

  2. Institute of Medicine, Chung-Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan

    Chih-Ping Han & Ya-Wen Cheng

  3. Clinical Trial Center, Chung-Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan

    Chih-Ping Han & Ming-Yung Lee

  4. Department of Pathology, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan

    Lai-Fong Kok

  5. David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Tina S. Wu

  6. Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Alexandra Ruan

  7. Department of Pathology, Chung-Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan

    Chiew-Loon Koo

  8. Department of Medical Imaging, Chung-Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan

    Yeu-Sheng Tyan

  9. Department of Medical Imaging and Radiological Science, Chung-Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan

    Yeu-Sheng Tyan

Authors
  1. Chih-Ping Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lai-Fong Kok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ming-Yung Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tina S. Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alexandra Ruan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ya-Wen Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Po-Hui Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Chiew-Loon Koo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yeu-Sheng Tyan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Chih-Ping Han or Yeu-Sheng Tyan.

Additional information

C.-P. Han, L.-F. Kok and M.-Y. Lee have equally contributed to this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Han, CP., Kok, LF., Lee, MY. et al. Five commonly used markers (p53, TTF1, CK7, CK20, and CK34βE12) are of no use in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray extension study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 281, 317–323 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-009-1115-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-009-1115-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation