Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Arginase-1 is a more sensitive marker than HepPar-1 and AFP in differential diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma from nonhepatocellular carcinoma

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Tumor Biology

Abstract

Distinguishing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from metastatic tumors is a challenging issue, especially in differential diagnosis between poorly differentiated HCC and metastasis tumors. Expression of Arg-1, HepPar-1, and α-fetoprotein (AFP) in 78 cases of HCC, 34 cases of metastatic tumors, and 228 cases of nonhepatocellular tumors of surgical specimens is measured by immunohistochemistry. Arg-1 immunoreactivity was detected in 75 of 78 (96.1 %) cases of HCC, whereas HepPar-1 and AFP immunoreactivity was detected in 63 of 78 (80.7 %) and 40 of 78 (51.3 %) cases of HCC, respectively. HepPar-1 and AFP expression was observed in three of 34 (8.8 %) cases and one of 34 (2.9 %) cases of metastatic tumors, respectively. In contrast, Arg-1 expression was absent in all 34 (0 %) cases of metastatic tumors. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of Arg-1 in distinguishing HCC from metastatic tumors and nonhepatocellular tumors are 96.1, 99.6, 98.7, and 98.8 % compared with 80.7, 92.0, 75.0, and 94.1 % for HepPar-1 and 51.3, 97.7, 87.0, and 87.1 % for AFP, respectively. Arg-1 is a more sensitive and better specific marker for HCC compared with HepPar-1 and AFP, indicating that Arg-1 can be easily applied in distinguishing HCC from metastatic tumors.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61(2):69–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gomaa AI, Khan SA, Toledano MB, Waked I, Taylor-Robinson SD. Hepatocellular carcinoma: epidemiology, risk factors and pathogenesis. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14(27):4300–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. El-Serag HB, Rudolph KL. Hepatocellular carcinoma: epidemiology and molecular carcinogenesis. Gastroenterology. 2007;132(7):2557–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Altekruse SF, McGlynn KA, Reichman ME. Hepatocellular carcinoma incidence, mortality, and survival trends in the United States from 1975 to 2005. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(9):1485–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. El-Serag HB. Hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(12):1118–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Iczkowski KA, Butler SL. New immunohistochemical markers in testicular tumors. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 2006;28(4):181–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ota S, Hishinuma M, Yamauchi N, et al. Oncofetal protein glypican-3 in testicular germ-cell tumor. Virchows Arch. 2006;449(3):308–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zynger DL, Dimov ND, Luan C, Teh BT, Yang XJ. Glypican 3: a novel marker in testicular germ cell tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30(12):1570–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zynger DL, Everton MJ, Dimov ND, Chou PM, Yang XJ. Expression of glypican 3 in ovarian and extragonadal germ cell tumors. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008;130(2):224–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kakar S, Gown AM, Goodman ZD, Ferrell LD. Best practices in diagnostic immunohistochemistry: hepatocellular carcinoma versus metastatic neoplasms. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131(11):1648–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kandil DH, Cooper K. Glypican-3: a novel diagnostic marker for hepatocellular carcinoma and more. Adv Anat Pathol. 2009;16(2):125–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Shirakawa H, Kuronuma T, Nishimura Y, et al. Glypican-3 is a useful diagnostic marker for a component of hepatocellular carcinoma in human liver cancer. Int J Oncol. 2009;34(3):649–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang HL, Anatelli F, Zhai QJ, et al. Glypican-3 as a useful diagnostic marker that distinguishes hepatocellular carcinoma from benign hepatocellular mass lesions. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(11):1723–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chu PG, Ishizawa S, Wu E, Weiss LM. Hepatocyte antigen as a marker of hepatocellular carcinoma: an immunohistochemical comparison to carcinoembryonic antigen, CD10, and alpha-fetoprotein. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26(8):978–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang L, Vuolo M, Suhrland MJ, 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(3):257–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fan Z, van de Rijn M, Montgomery K, Rouse RV. Hep par 1 antibody stain for the differential diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: 676 tumors tested using tissue microarrays and conventional tissue sections. Mod Pathol. 2003;16(2):137–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Leong AS, Sormunen RT, Tsui WM, Liew CT. Hep Par 1 and selected antibodies in the immunohistological distinction of hepatocellular carcinoma from cholangiocarcinoma, combined tumours and metastatic carcinoma. Histopathology. 1998;33(4):318–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kakar S, Muir T, Murphy LM, Lloyd RV, Burgart LJ. Immunoreactivity of Hep Par 1 in hepatic and extrahepatic tumors and its correlation with albumin in situ hybridization in hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119(3):361–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lau SK, Prakash S, Geller SA, Alsabeh R. Comparative immunohistochemical profile of hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, and metastatic adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 2002;33(12):1175–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Minervini MI, Demetris AJ, Lee RG, et al. Utilization of hepatocyte-specific antibody in the immunocytochemical evaluation of liver tumors. Mod Pathol. 1997;10(7):686–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 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  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Webb A, Scott-Mackie P, Cunningham D. The prognostic value of CEA, beta HCG, AFP, CA125, CA19-9 and C-erb B-2, beta HCG immunohistochemistry in advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 1995;6(6):581–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Science and Technology Supporting Project (NO. 201291172 and NO. 201233142), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NO. 81460513)

Conflicts of interests

None

Author contributions

WS and QL conceived and designed the experiments. WZ and WC performed the experiments. GA and XL analyzed the data, WS and QL wrote the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Department of Pathology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, 137 South Liyushan Road, Urumqi, 830054, People’s Republic of China

    Wei Sang, Wei Zhang, Wenli Cui, Xinxia Li, Gulinar Abulajiang & Qiaoxin Li

Authors
  1. Wei Sang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wei Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wenli Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xinxia Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gulinar Abulajiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Qiaoxin Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qiaoxin Li.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOC 27 kb)

ESM 2

(DOC 31 kb)

ESM 3

(DOC 35 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sang, W., Zhang, W., Cui, W. et al. Arginase-1 is a more sensitive marker than HepPar-1 and AFP in differential diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma from nonhepatocellular carcinoma. Tumor Biol. 36, 3881–3886 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-014-3030-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-014-3030-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation