International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2018
Comparative Use of Napsin A and Glypican 3 to Distinguish Endometrial Clear Cell from Serous and Endometrioid Carcinomas.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Miller Eirwen M, Tymon-Rosario Joan, Sunkara Jaya, Harmon Bryan E, Karabakhtsian Rouzan G, Novetsky Akiva P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Diagnosis of endometrial clear cell carcinomas is difficult owing to the low reproducibility of histological cell type in high-grade endometrial cancers. Recently, immunoreactivity for napsin A and glypican 3 has been reported in clear cell cancers. We sought to evaluate the use of napsin A and glypican 3 staining to distinguish clear cell carcinoma from other high-grade endometrial cancers.
METHODS/MATERIALS: Twenty cases of pure and mixed endometrial clear cell carcinoma were extracted from the 2000-2014 archival material in the Departments of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pathology at Montefiore Medical Center and compared to serous and grade 3 endometrioid controls. Representative sections were stained with monoclonal antibodies to napsin A and glypican 3. Immunostains were independently reviewed by 2 pathologists to assess frequency and pattern of staining. Charts were reviewed for clinicopathologic and treatment data.
RESULTS: Granular cytoplasmic positivity for napsin A was observed in 70% of endometrial clear cell carcinomas; only 25% showed cytoplasmic or membranous glypican 3 positivity. No serous or high-grade endometrioid tumors stained for either marker. No cases of clear cell carcinoma that stained negative for napsin A stained positive for glypican 3. No difference in the immunohistochemical profile was found between pure and mixed clear cell carcinomas and between early- and advanced-stage clear cell carcinomas.
CONCLUSIONS: Napsin A is a more sensitive marker for endometrial clear cell carcinoma than glypican 3. In histologically ambiguous cases, napsin A and glypican 3 may help distinguish clear cell carcinoma from other high-grade histologies. Further investigation of endometrial clear cell carcinoma is needed to identify additional diagnostic tools for this rare histology. Correlation of a unique immunohistochemical profile and clinical outcomes is necessary.
METHODS/MATERIALS: Twenty cases of pure and mixed endometrial clear cell carcinoma were extracted from the 2000-2014 archival material in the Departments of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pathology at Montefiore Medical Center and compared to serous and grade 3 endometrioid controls. Representative sections were stained with monoclonal antibodies to napsin A and glypican 3. Immunostains were independently reviewed by 2 pathologists to assess frequency and pattern of staining. Charts were reviewed for clinicopathologic and treatment data.
RESULTS: Granular cytoplasmic positivity for napsin A was observed in 70% of endometrial clear cell carcinomas; only 25% showed cytoplasmic or membranous glypican 3 positivity. No serous or high-grade endometrioid tumors stained for either marker. No cases of clear cell carcinoma that stained negative for napsin A stained positive for glypican 3. No difference in the immunohistochemical profile was found between pure and mixed clear cell carcinomas and between early- and advanced-stage clear cell carcinomas.
CONCLUSIONS: Napsin A is a more sensitive marker for endometrial clear cell carcinoma than glypican 3. In histologically ambiguous cases, napsin A and glypican 3 may help distinguish clear cell carcinoma from other high-grade histologies. Further investigation of endometrial clear cell carcinoma is needed to identify additional diagnostic tools for this rare histology. Correlation of a unique immunohistochemical profile and clinical outcomes is necessary.