Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2021
The expression pattern of CD10 and CD31 identifies fine fibrovascular stroma of grade 1-endometrial endometrioid carcinomas in cytology.
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.
Norimatsu Yoshiaki, Nishikawa Takeshi, Suzuki Hisae, Hosokawa Sho, Yano Hiroko, Maeda Yoshinobu, Kurokawa Tetsuji, Shinagawa Akiko, Kobayashi Tadao K, Fulciniti Franco
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic utility of CD10 in the differential diagnosis of grade 1-endometrial endometrioid carcinoma (G1-EEC) and the metaplastic changes associated with the endometrial glandular and stromal breakdown (EGBD) on liquid-based cytological (LBC) samples.
METHODS: (1) The type and distribution of CD10-positive cells in EGBD and G1-EEC patients were evaluated. (2) Based on the results from (1), histological and cytological specimens were double-immunostained with CD31 and CD10 to confirm whether CD10-positive tubular-canalicular material found in (1) was represented by fine threads of endometrial-type fibrovascular stroma. (3) Based on the results from (2), additional immunostaining of histological specimens was performed for CD146 and αSMA as markers of perivascular cells.
RESULTS: (1) CD10 positive cells showed two main patterns of expression: cytoplasmic immunoreactivity in the form of dense brown granules in EGBD and tubular-canalicular branching patterns in G1-EEC. (2) The tubular-canalicular material observed in cytological specimens of G1-EEC samples co-expressed CD10 and CD31, and was interpreted as representing fine threads of endometrial fibrovascular stroma in the corresponding histological samples. Conversely, metaplastic changes in EGBD cases, only a few CD31-positive signals were found inside the condensed stromal clusters with CD10-positive. (3) Cells surrounding the CD31-positive vascular endothelial cells expressed CD146 and αSMA; moreover, some of the thin CD10-positive fibrous stromal strands also co-expressed αSMA.
CONCLUSIONS: CD10 is a very useful immunomarker for distinguishing between G1-EEC and the metaplastic changes of EGBD in LBC samples.
METHODS: (1) The type and distribution of CD10-positive cells in EGBD and G1-EEC patients were evaluated. (2) Based on the results from (1), histological and cytological specimens were double-immunostained with CD31 and CD10 to confirm whether CD10-positive tubular-canalicular material found in (1) was represented by fine threads of endometrial-type fibrovascular stroma. (3) Based on the results from (2), additional immunostaining of histological specimens was performed for CD146 and αSMA as markers of perivascular cells.
RESULTS: (1) CD10 positive cells showed two main patterns of expression: cytoplasmic immunoreactivity in the form of dense brown granules in EGBD and tubular-canalicular branching patterns in G1-EEC. (2) The tubular-canalicular material observed in cytological specimens of G1-EEC samples co-expressed CD10 and CD31, and was interpreted as representing fine threads of endometrial fibrovascular stroma in the corresponding histological samples. Conversely, metaplastic changes in EGBD cases, only a few CD31-positive signals were found inside the condensed stromal clusters with CD10-positive. (3) Cells surrounding the CD31-positive vascular endothelial cells expressed CD146 and αSMA; moreover, some of the thin CD10-positive fibrous stromal strands also co-expressed αSMA.
CONCLUSIONS: CD10 is a very useful immunomarker for distinguishing between G1-EEC and the metaplastic changes of EGBD in LBC samples.