Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Diagnostic Value of Arginase-1, FTCD, and MOC-31 Expression in Early Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) and in Differentiation Between HCC and Metastatic Adenocarcinoma to the Liver

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Early detection of small HCC and differentiation between HCC from AC metastatic to the liver is very essential for surgical pathologists, due to different treatment modalities. Immunohistochemistry plays a very important role in such conditions.

In our study, we aimed to identify the diagnostic benefits of Arginase-1, FTCD& MOC-31 in the early detection of HCC in normal or cirrhotic liver, differentiation between HCC and metastatic ACs to the liver, and for early detection of small micro-metastases from ACs to liver.

Materials and Methods

We included 20 samples from liver cirrhosis, 10 samples from normal liver tissue, 30 samples from primary HCCs in the liver, and 30 samples from metastatic ACs to the liver. We have evaluated Arginase-1, FTCD, and MOC-31 expression using immunohistochemistry.

Results

The sensitivity of Arginase-1 expression in differentiation between HCC and metastatic carcinoma was 93.3% and the specificity was 93.3%.

The sensitivity of FTCD expression in differentiation between HCC and normal or cirrhotic liver and early detection of well-differentiated HCC was 90% and the specificity was 86.7%. The sensitivity of MOC-31 expression in differentiation between HCC and metastatic carcinoma was 90% and the specificity was 90%. The sensitivity of combination of panel of Arginase 1 + FTCD + MOC 31 expression in differentiation between HCC, metastatic carcinoma, and normal and cirrhotic liver was 93.3% and the specificity was 93.3%.

Conclusions

The combination of Arginase 1 + FTCD + MOC 31 expression was helpful in diagnosing most cases of HCC and metastatic carcinoma with high sensitivity and specificity.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ferlay J1, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015; 136: 359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. El-Serag HB, Kanwal F. Epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States: where are we? Where do we go? Hepatology. 2014;60:1767–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sang W, Zhang W, Cui W, Li X, Abulajiang G, Li Q. Arginase-1 is a more sensitive marker than HepPar-1 and AFP in differential diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma from nonhepatocellular carcinoma. Tumor Biol. 2015;36(5):3881–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Knudsen ES, Gopal P, Singal AG. The changing landscape of hepatocellular carcinoma: etiology, genetics, and therapy. Am J Pathol. 2014;184(3):574–83.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Seimiya M, Tomonaga T, Matsushita K, Sunaga M, Oh-ishi M, Kodera Y, et al. Identification of novel immunohistochemical tumor markers for primary hepatocellular carcinoma; clathrin heavy chain and formiminotransferase cyclodeaminase. HEPATOLOGY. 2008;48:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jenkinson CP, Grody WW, Cederbaum SD. Comparative properties of arginases. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 1996;114:107–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Morris SM Jr. Recent advances in arginine metabolism: roles and regulation of the arginases. Br J Pharmacol. 2009;157:922–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Munder M. Arginase: an emerging key player in the mammalian immune system. Br J Pharmacol. 2009;158:638–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Murley LL, MacKenzie RE. The two monofunctional domains of octameric formiminotransferase–cyclodeaminase exist as dimers. Biochemistry. 1995;34:10358–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hagiwara H, Tajika Y, Matsuzaki T, Suzuki T, Aoki T, Takata K. Localization of Golgi 58K protein (formiminotransferase cyclodeaminase) to the centrosome. Histochem Cell Biol. 2006;126:251–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00418-006-0166-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bashour AM, Bloom GS. 58K, a microtubule-binding Golgi protein, is a formiminotransferase cyclodeaminase. J Biol Chem. 1998;273:19612–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Solans A, Estivill X, de La Luna S. Cloning and characterization of human FTCD on 21q22.3, a candidate gene for glutamate formiminotransferase deficiency. Cytogenet Cell Genet. 2002;88:43–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sawan A. The diagnostic value of immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of primary and secondary hepatic carcinomas. J King Abdulaziz Univ Med Sci. 2009;16:37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Radwan NA, Ahmed NS. The diagnostic value of arginase-1 immunostaining in differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma from metastatic carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma as compared to HepPar-1. Diagn Pathol. 2012;7:149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fong D, Seeber A, Terracciano L, Kasal A, Mazzoleni G, Lehne F, et al. Expression of EpCAMMF and EpCAMMT variants in human carcinomas. J Clin Pathol. 2014;67:408–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Manuel Schlageter, Luigi Maria Terracciano, Salvatore D’Angelo, and Paolo Sorrentino Histopathology of hepatocellular carcinomaWorld J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(43): 15955–15964.

  17. Hsu SM, Raine L, Fanger H. Use of avidin-biotin-peroxidase complex (ABC) in immunoperoxidase techniques: a comparison between ABC and unlabeled antibody (PAP) procedures. J Histochem Cytochem. 1981;29:577–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Geramizadeh B, Seirfar N. Diagnostic value of arginase-1 and glypican-3 in differential diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma and metastatic carcinoma of liver. Hepat Mon. 2015;15(7):e30336.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Karabork A, Kaygusuz G, Ekinci C. The best immunohistochemical panel for differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma from metastatic adenocarcinoma. Pathol Res Pract. 2010;206:572–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ordo’n˜ez N.G Arginase-1 is a novel immunohistochemical marker of hepatocellular differentiation. Adv Anat Pathol 2014; 21:285–290.

  21. Nguyen T, Phillips D, Jain D, Torbenson M, Wu TT, Yeh MM T, Kakar S1.., Comparison of 5 immunohistochemical markers of hepatocellular differentiation for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015; 139, 1028, 1034.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Yan BC, Gong C, Song J, Krausz T, Tretiakova M, Hyjek E, et al. Arginase-1: a new immunohistochemical marker of hepatocytes and hepatocellular neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34(8):1147–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yan B, Wei JJ, Qian YM, Zhao XL, Zhang WW, Xu AM, et al. Expres¬sion and clinicopathologic significance of glypican 3 in hepato¬cellular carcinoma. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2011;15(3):162–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Krings G, Ramachandran R, Jain D, Wu TT, Yeh MM, Torbenson M, et al. Immunohistochemical pitfalls and the importance of glypican 3 and arginase in the diagnosis of scirrhous hepatocellular carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2013;26(6):782–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ramachandran R, Kakar S. Metastatic tumors: llustration of immunohistochemical workup. In: Ferrell L, Kakar S, editors. Liver pathology. New York, NY: Demos Medical Publishing; 2011. p. 431–5.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Fujiwara M, Kwok S, Yano H, Pai RK. Arginase-1 is a more sensitive marker of hepatic differentiation than HepPar-1 and glypican-3 in fine-needle aspiration biopsies. Cancer Cytopathol. 2012;120(4):230–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. McKnight R, Nassar A, Cohen C, Siddiqui MT. Arginase-1: a novel immunohistochemical marker of hepatocellular differentiation in fine needle aspiration cytology. Cancer Cytopathol. 2012;120(4):223–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Timek DT, Shi J, Liu H, Lin F. Arginase-1, HepPar-1, and Glypican-3 are the most effective panel of markers in distinguishing hepatocellular carcinoma from metastatic tumor on fine-needle aspiration specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;138(2):203–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hanif R, Mansoor S. Hep Par-1: a novel immunohistochemical marker for differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma from metastatic carcinoma. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2014;24:186–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Iida H, Hata M, Kakuno A, Hirano H, Yamanegi K, Yamada N, et al. Expression of hepatocyte markers in mass-forming peripheral and periductal-infiltrating hilar intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas. Oncol Lett. 2011;2(6):1041–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ahmed MA, Badary FA, Yassin EH, Mohammed SA, El-Attar MM. Differential expression of MOC-31, Hep Par 1, and N-cadherin in primary carcinoma and metastatic adenocarcinoma in the liver. J Curr Med Res Pract. 2016;1:54–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chen ZE. Application of immunohistochemistry in gastrointestinal and liver neoplasms. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139:14–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wang L, Vuolo M, Suhrland M, Schlesinger K. HepPar1, MOC-31, pCEA, mCEA and CD10 for distinguishing hepatocellular carcinoma vs. metastatic adenocarcinoma in liver fine needle aspirates. Acta Cytol. 2006;50:257–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Al-Muhannadi N, Ansari N, Brahmi U, Abdel Satir A. Differential diagnosis of malignant epithelial tumours in the liver: an immunohistochemical study on liver biopsy material. Ann Hepatol. 2011;10:508–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Zagazig University Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig, Egypt

    Osama H. Labib & Ola A. Harb

  2. Department of General surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University Zagazig, Zagazig, Egypt

    Osama H. Khalil, Taha A. Baiomy & Loay M. Gertallah

  3. Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Zagazig University Zagazig, Zagazig, Egypt

    Rham Z. Ahmed

Authors
  1. Osama H. Labib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ola A. Harb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Osama H. Khalil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Taha A. Baiomy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Loay M. Gertallah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rham Z. Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ola A. Harb.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Labib, O.H., Harb, O.A., Khalil, O.H. et al. The Diagnostic Value of Arginase-1, FTCD, and MOC-31 Expression in Early Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) and in Differentiation Between HCC and Metastatic Adenocarcinoma to the Liver. J Gastrointest Canc 51, 88–101 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-019-00211-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12029-019-00211-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation