Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology · 2016
BRAFV600E mutation in the diagnosis of unicystic ameloblastoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pereira Núbia Braga, Pereira Karuza Maria Alves, Coura Bruna Pizziolo, Diniz Marina Gonçalves, de Castro Wagner Henriques, Gomes Carolina Cavalieri, Gomez Ricardo Santiago
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Unicystic ameloblastoma, an odontogenic neoplasm, presents clinical and radiographic similarities with dentigerous and radicular cysts, non-neoplastic lesions. It is not always possible to reach a final diagnosis with the incisional biopsy, leading to inappropriate treatment. The BRAFV600E activating mutation has been reported in a high proportion of ameloblastomas. The purpose of the study was to assess the utility of the detection of the BRAFV600E mutation in the differential diagnosis of unicystic ameloblastoma with dentigerous and radicular cysts.
METHODS: Twenty-six archival samples were included, comprising eight unicystic ameloblastomas (UAs), nine dentigerous and nine radicular cysts. The mutation was assessed in all samples by anti-BRAFV600E (clone VE1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) and by TaqMan mutation detection qPCR assay. Sanger sequencing was further carried out when samples showed conflicting results in the IHC and qPCR.
RESULTS: Although all UAs (8/8) showed positive uniform BRAFV600E staining along the epithelial lining length, the mutation was not confirmed by qPCR and Sanger sequencing in three samples. Positive staining for the BRAFV600E protein was observed in one dentigerous cyst, but it was not confirmed by the molecular methods. Furthermore, 2/9 dentigerous cysts and 2/9 radicular cysts showed non-specific immunostaining of the epithelium or plasma cells. None of the dentigerous or radicular cysts cases presented the BRAFV600E mutation in the qPCR assay.
CONCLUSIONS: The BRAFV600E antibody (clone VE1) IHC may show non-specific staining, but molecular assays may be useful for the diagnosis of unicystic ameloblastoma, in conjunction with clinical, radiological and histopathological features.
METHODS: Twenty-six archival samples were included, comprising eight unicystic ameloblastomas (UAs), nine dentigerous and nine radicular cysts. The mutation was assessed in all samples by anti-BRAFV600E (clone VE1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) and by TaqMan mutation detection qPCR assay. Sanger sequencing was further carried out when samples showed conflicting results in the IHC and qPCR.
RESULTS: Although all UAs (8/8) showed positive uniform BRAFV600E staining along the epithelial lining length, the mutation was not confirmed by qPCR and Sanger sequencing in three samples. Positive staining for the BRAFV600E protein was observed in one dentigerous cyst, but it was not confirmed by the molecular methods. Furthermore, 2/9 dentigerous cysts and 2/9 radicular cysts showed non-specific immunostaining of the epithelium or plasma cells. None of the dentigerous or radicular cysts cases presented the BRAFV600E mutation in the qPCR assay.
CONCLUSIONS: The BRAFV600E antibody (clone VE1) IHC may show non-specific staining, but molecular assays may be useful for the diagnosis of unicystic ameloblastoma, in conjunction with clinical, radiological and histopathological features.