Pathology, research and practice · 2022
Could double stain for p53/CK20 be a useful diagnostic tool for the appropriate classification of flat urothelial lesions?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Di Sciascio Luisa, Ambrosi Francesca, Franceschini Tania, Giunchi Francesca, Franchini Eugenia, Massari Francesco, Bianchi Federico Mineo, Colecchia Maurizio, Fiorentino Michelangelo, Ricci Costantino
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The differential diagnosis between flat urothelial lesions [reactive urothelial atypia (RUA), atypia of unknown significance (AUS), urothelial dysplasia (UD) and carcinoma in situ (CIS)] has relevant prognostic and therapeutic implications. This crucial distinction could be very challenging but it is currently performed on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) slides, with a great amount of partially discordant and/or not conclusive findings of the potential adjunctive role of immunohistochemistry. Herein, we tested double staining (DS) for p53/CK20 to verify if p53(+) cells, CK20(+) cells and double-positive cells (DPCs) are differentially expressed among these lesions and if p53/CK20 could be a useful tool in this diagnostic setting.
METHODS: We tested 50, 9, 36 and 29 consecutive and retrospectively enrolled cases of RUA, AUS, UD and CIS, respectively. p53(+) cells, CK20(+) cells and DPCs were evaluated and compared by adopting the appropriate statistic tests (Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests).
RESULTS: We found that p53(+) cells (p = 0.000), CK20(+) cells (p = 0.000) and DPCs (p = 0.000) showed statistically significant differences among the different flat urothelial lesions. Besides, when dichotomized, both CIS and RUA are easily differentiable from their histological mimickers adopting all these markers; by contrast, AUS and UD did not reach statistically significant differences able to differentiate them from each other [p53(+) cells, p = 0.123; CK20(+) cells, p = 0.567; DPCs, p = 0.409], except if compared to CIS [AUS VS CIS: p53(+) cells, p = 0.013; CK20(+) cells, p = 0.000; DPCs, p = 0.000; UD vs CIS: p53(+) cells, p = 0.000; CK20(+) cells, p = 0.000; DPCs, p = 0.000].
CONCLUSIONS: p53(+) cells, CK20(+) cells and DPCs are differently expressed by flat urothelial lesions and p53/CK20 could be a time- and money-saving tool for the appropriate management of these lesions if applied to a routine scenario.
METHODS: We tested 50, 9, 36 and 29 consecutive and retrospectively enrolled cases of RUA, AUS, UD and CIS, respectively. p53(+) cells, CK20(+) cells and DPCs were evaluated and compared by adopting the appropriate statistic tests (Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests).
RESULTS: We found that p53(+) cells (p = 0.000), CK20(+) cells (p = 0.000) and DPCs (p = 0.000) showed statistically significant differences among the different flat urothelial lesions. Besides, when dichotomized, both CIS and RUA are easily differentiable from their histological mimickers adopting all these markers; by contrast, AUS and UD did not reach statistically significant differences able to differentiate them from each other [p53(+) cells, p = 0.123; CK20(+) cells, p = 0.567; DPCs, p = 0.409], except if compared to CIS [AUS VS CIS: p53(+) cells, p = 0.013; CK20(+) cells, p = 0.000; DPCs, p = 0.000; UD vs CIS: p53(+) cells, p = 0.000; CK20(+) cells, p = 0.000; DPCs, p = 0.000].
CONCLUSIONS: p53(+) cells, CK20(+) cells and DPCs are differently expressed by flat urothelial lesions and p53/CK20 could be a time- and money-saving tool for the appropriate management of these lesions if applied to a routine scenario.