Skip to main content

Clinical Interpretation of Immunohistochemistry in Gynaecological Cancers

  • 171 Accesses

Abstract

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is a technique whereby antigens (proteins) that are present in a cell are detected by the use of antibodies that bind to the antigens. It may be used to help make a diagnosis, provide prognostic information or to provide predictive information about how well a patient is likely to respond to treatment. IHC does not act as a replacement for histology; however, it can be used as an adjunctive investigation in selected circumstances. No immunomarker is completely sensitive and specific and therefore a panel of several markers is normally required in diagnostically challenging cases. In these circumstances, the markers are chosen at the discretion of the pathologist in order to resolve a specific dilemma, for example typing a tumour with ambiguous or poorly differentiated morphology or identifying the site of origin of a metastatic deposit. Pathologists present immunohistochemistry results in their reports and at tumour board meetings with interpretive advice. Knowledge of the principles of immunohistochemistry and its application in female genital tract tumours will help the clinician to optimise decision-making and patient care. The use of IHC in gynaecological pathology is discussed in this chapter.

Keywords

  • Immunohistochemistry, Histopathology, Gynaecological cancer, p53, p16, Mismatch repair

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-94110-9_15
  • Chapter length: 19 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-94110-9
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 15.1
Fig. 15.2
Fig. 15.3
Fig. 15.4
Fig. 15.5
Fig. 15.6
Fig. 15.7
Fig. 15.8

References

  1. Köbel M, Rahimi K, Rambau PF, Naugler C, Le Page C, Meunier L, et al. An immunohistochemical algorithm for ovarian carcinoma typing. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2016;35(5):430–41.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Köbel MM, McCluggage WG, Gilks CB, Singh N. Interpretation of p53 immunohistochemistry in tubo-ovarian carcinoma: guidelines for reporting. Br Assoc Gynaecol Pathol. 2016; https://www.thebagp.org/download/bagp-ukneqas-project-p53-interpretation-guide-2016/ (accessed 27.01.22)

  3. Al-Hussaini M, Stockman A, Foster H, McCluggage WG. WT-1 assists in distinguishing ovarian from uterine serous carcinoma and in distinguishing between serous and endometrioid ovarian carcinoma. Histopathology. 2004;44(2):109–15.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  4. Deavers MT, Malpica A, Liu J, Broaddus R, Silva EG. Ovarian sex cord-stromal tumors: an immunohistochemical study including a comparison of calretinin and inhibin. Mod Pathol. 2003;16(6):584–90.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  5. Rabban JT, Zaloudek CJ. A practical approach to immunohistochemical diagnosis of ovarian germ cell tumours and sex cord-stromal tumours. Histopathology. 2013;62(1):71–88.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Al-Nafussi A. Ovarian epithelial tumours: common problems in diagnosis. Curr Diagn Pathol. 2004;10(6):473–99.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  7. Chu P, Wu E, Weiss LM. Cytokeratin 7 and cytokeratin 20 expression in epithelial neoplasms: a survey of 435 cases. Mod Pathol. 2000;13(9):962–72.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Conner JR, Hornick JL. Metastatic carcinoma of unknown primary: diagnostic approach using immunohistochemistry. Adv Anat Pathol. 2015;22(3):149–67.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Ronnett BM, Shmookler BM, Diener-West M, Sugarbaker PH, Kurman RJ. Immunohistochemical evidence supporting the appendiceal origin of pseudomyxoma peritonei in women. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1997;16(1):1–9.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. McCluggage WG, Sumathi VP, McBride HA, Patterson A. 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. 2002;21(1):11–5.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Kounelis S, Kapranos N, Kouri E, Coppola D, Papadaki H, Jones MW. Immunohistochemical profile of endometrial adenocarcinoma: a study of 61 cases and review of the literature. Mod Pathol. 2000;13(4):379–88.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Ramalingam P, Masand RP, Euscher ED, Malpica A. Undifferentiated carcinoma of the endometrium: an expanded immunohistochemical analysis including PAX-8 and basal-like carcinoma surrogate markers. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2016;35(5):410–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  13. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, Kandoth C, Schultz N, Cherniack AD, Akbani R, Liu Y, et al. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature. 2013;497(7447):67–73.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. Gilks CB, Oliva E, Soslow RA. Poor interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of high-grade endometrial carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37(6):874–81.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Levine DA, Getz G, Gabriel SB, Cibulskis K, Lander E, Sivachenko A, et al. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature. 2013;497(7447):67–73.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  16. Baretti M, Le DT. DNA mismatch repair in cancer. Pharmacol Ther. 2018;189:45–62.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  17. Cerretelli G, Ager A, Arends MJ, Frayling IM. Molecular pathology of Lynch syndrome. J Pathol. 2020;250(5):518–31.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  18. Stelloo E, Jansen AML, Osse EM, Nout RA, Creutzberg CL, Ruano D, et al. Practical guidance for mismatch repair-deficiency testing in endometrial cancer. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(1):96–102.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  19. Bruegl AS, Djordjevic B, Urbauer DL, Westin SN, Soliman PT, Lu KH, et al. Utility of MLH1 methylation analysis in the clinical evaluation of Lynch Syndrome in women with endometrial cancer. Curr Pharm Des. 2014;20(11):1655–63.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  20. Oliva E, Young RH, Amin MB, Clement PB. An immunohistochemical analysis of endometrial stromal and smooth muscle tumors of the uterus: a study of 54 cases emphasizing the importance of using a panel because of overlap in immunoreactivity for individual antibodies. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26(4):403–12.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. McCluggage WG, Sumathi VP, Maxwell P. CD10 is a sensitive and diagnostically useful immunohistochemical marker of normal endometrial stroma and of endometrial stromal neoplasms. Histopathology. 2001;39(3):273–8.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  22. Iwasaki S-i, Sudo T, Miwa M, Ukita M, Morimoto A, Tamada M, et al. Endometrial stromal sarcoma: clinicopathological and immunophenotypic study of 16 cases. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288(2):385–91.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. Gallardo A, Prat J. Mullerian adenosarcoma: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study of 55 cases challenging the existence of adenofibroma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(2):278–88.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. de Leval L, Lim GSD, Waltregny D, Oliva E. Diverse phenotypic profile of uterine tumors resembling ovarian sex cord tumors: an immunohistochemical study of 12 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34(12):1749–61.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  25. Bennett JA, Braga AC, Pinto A, Van de Vijver K, Cornejo K, Pesci A, et al. Uterine PEComas: a morphologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular analysis of 32 tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2018;42(10):1370–83.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang EC, Kwah YC, Tan WP, Lee JS, Tan SH. Extramammary Paget disease: immunohistochemistry is critical to distinguish potential mimickers. Dermatol Online J. 2012;18(9):4.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  27. Perrotto J, Abbott JJ, Ceilley RI, Ahmed I. The role of immunohistochemistry in discriminating primary from secondary extramammary paget disease. Am J Dermatopathol. 2010;32(2):137–43.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  28. Mulvany NJ, Allen DG. Differentiated intraepithelial neoplasia of the vulva. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 2008;27(1):125–35.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  29. Singh NG, Gilks CB, Wong RWC, McCluggage WG, Herrington CS. Interpretation of p16 immunohistochemistry in lower anogenital tract neoplasia. Br Assoc Gynaecol Pathol. 2019; https://www.thebagp.org/download/bagp-ukneqas-c1qc-projectinterpretation-guide-2018/ (accessed 27.01.22)

  30. Guo M, Gong Y, Deavers M, Silva EG, Jan YJ, Cogdell DE, et al. Evaluation of a commercialized in situ hybridization assay for detecting human papillomavirus DNA in tissue specimens from patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cervical carcinoma. J Clin Microbiol. 2008;46(1):274–80.

    CAS  CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William Boyle .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Boyle, W., Evans, M., Vella, J. (2022). Clinical Interpretation of Immunohistochemistry in Gynaecological Cancers. In: Singh, K., Gupta, B. (eds) Gynecological Oncology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94110-9_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94110-9_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-94109-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-94110-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)