Inclusion of MUC1 (Ma695) in a panel of immunohistochemical markers is useful for distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma

Distinguishing endocervical adenocarcinoma (ECA) from endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma (EMMA) is clinically significant in view of the differences in their management and prognosis. In this study, we used a panel of tumor markers to determine their ability to distinguish between primary endocervi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMC clinical pathology 2006-01, Vol.6 (1), p.1-1, Article 1
Hauptverfasser: Khoury, Thaer, Tan, Dongfeng, Wang, Jianmin, Intengan, Marilyn, Yang, Jun, Alrawi, Sadir, Yan, Peisha, Byrd, James C
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1
container_issue 1
container_start_page 1
container_title BMC clinical pathology
container_volume 6
creator Khoury, Thaer
Tan, Dongfeng
Wang, Jianmin
Intengan, Marilyn
Yang, Jun
Alrawi, Sadir
Yan, Peisha
Byrd, James C
description Distinguishing endocervical adenocarcinoma (ECA) from endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma (EMMA) is clinically significant in view of the differences in their management and prognosis. In this study, we used a panel of tumor markers to determine their ability to distinguish between primary endocervical adenocarcinoma and primary endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma. Immunohistochemistry using monoclonal antibodies to MUC1 (Ma695), p16, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and vimentin, was performed to examine 32 cases, including 18 EMMAs and 14 ECAs. For MUC1, cases were scored based on the percentage of staining pattern, apical, apical and cytoplasmic (A/C), or negative. For p16, cases were scored based on the percentage of cells stained. For the rest of the antibodies, semiquantitative scoring system was carried out. For MUC1, majority of EMMA (14 of 18 cases, 78%) showed A/C staining, whereas only few ECA (2 of 14, 14%) were positive. The difference of MUC1 expression in the two groups of malignancy was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Staining for p16 was positive in 10 of 14 (71%) ECA and 4 of 18 (22%) EMMA. Estrogen receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 17 of 18 (94%) EMMA. Progesterone receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 16 of 18 (89%) EMMA. Vimentin was positive in 1 of 14 (7%) ECA, and 9 of 18 (50%) EMA, with median and range of 0 (0-6), and 1.5 (0-9) respectively. A panel of immunohistochemical markers including MUC1, p16, ER, PR, and vimentin is recommended, when there is morphological and clinical doubt as to the primary site of endocervical or endometrial origin.
doi_str_mv 10.1186/1472-6890-6-1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1382242</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>734184353</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b3581-21887efbf1c6e80ba5de0fd6a0ae6b053ccbfe7f4b13a694837d6b97fc660ea83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1ks9vFCEUx4nR2Lp69Gq4qYdRGGYY9mJqNv5o0saLPRNgHl10gBWGGv-Y_q9lupvaxnh6PN6XDzy-D6GXlLyjVPD3tBvahos1aXhDH6Hju_zxvfURepbzD0LoIGj7FB1R3pE1b7tjdH0azFSyiwFHi88vNhS_OVd83b_FLmCFdyrAtJSc9yXErctzNFvwzqgJe5V-QsrYZVwy2DJhGxMeq8aFy-LytgasYf4NEDCEMRpIV7cnVRhvNzzMyS2kYlyIJWM1QohGpSX16jl6YtWU4cUhrtDF50_fN1-bs29fTjcfzxrNekGblgoxgNWWGg6CaNWPQOzIFVHANemZMdrCYDtNWe2tE2wYuV4P1nBOQAm2Qh_23F3RHkYDYU5qkrvkaot_ZFROPqwEt5WX8UpSJtq2ayvgZA_QLv4H8LBiopeLPXKxR_IKWqHXhzek-KtAnqV32cA0VQfqz8iBdVR0rGdV2eyVJsWcE9i7eyiRy1D8Q351v7u_6sMUsBvoFbfa</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>734184353</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Inclusion of MUC1 (Ma695) in a panel of immunohistochemical markers is useful for distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma</title><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><source>Access via BioMed Central</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Khoury, Thaer ; Tan, Dongfeng ; Wang, Jianmin ; Intengan, Marilyn ; Yang, Jun ; Alrawi, Sadir ; Yan, Peisha ; Byrd, James C</creator><creatorcontrib>Khoury, Thaer ; Tan, Dongfeng ; Wang, Jianmin ; Intengan, Marilyn ; Yang, Jun ; Alrawi, Sadir ; Yan, Peisha ; Byrd, James C</creatorcontrib><description>Distinguishing endocervical adenocarcinoma (ECA) from endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma (EMMA) is clinically significant in view of the differences in their management and prognosis. In this study, we used a panel of tumor markers to determine their ability to distinguish between primary endocervical adenocarcinoma and primary endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma. Immunohistochemistry using monoclonal antibodies to MUC1 (Ma695), p16, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and vimentin, was performed to examine 32 cases, including 18 EMMAs and 14 ECAs. For MUC1, cases were scored based on the percentage of staining pattern, apical, apical and cytoplasmic (A/C), or negative. For p16, cases were scored based on the percentage of cells stained. For the rest of the antibodies, semiquantitative scoring system was carried out. For MUC1, majority of EMMA (14 of 18 cases, 78%) showed A/C staining, whereas only few ECA (2 of 14, 14%) were positive. The difference of MUC1 expression in the two groups of malignancy was statistically significant (p &lt; 0.001). Staining for p16 was positive in 10 of 14 (71%) ECA and 4 of 18 (22%) EMMA. Estrogen receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 17 of 18 (94%) EMMA. Progesterone receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 16 of 18 (89%) EMMA. Vimentin was positive in 1 of 14 (7%) ECA, and 9 of 18 (50%) EMA, with median and range of 0 (0-6), and 1.5 (0-9) respectively. A panel of immunohistochemical markers including MUC1, p16, ER, PR, and vimentin is recommended, when there is morphological and clinical doubt as to the primary site of endocervical or endometrial origin.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1472-6890</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-6890</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/1472-6890-6-1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16409624</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><ispartof>BMC clinical pathology, 2006-01, Vol.6 (1), p.1-1, Article 1</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2006 Khoury et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b3581-21887efbf1c6e80ba5de0fd6a0ae6b053ccbfe7f4b13a694837d6b97fc660ea83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b3581-21887efbf1c6e80ba5de0fd6a0ae6b053ccbfe7f4b13a694837d6b97fc660ea83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1382242/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1382242/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,24801,27924,27925,53791,53793,75738,75739</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16409624$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Khoury, Thaer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Dongfeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Jianmin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Intengan, Marilyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alrawi, Sadir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yan, Peisha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Byrd, James C</creatorcontrib><title>Inclusion of MUC1 (Ma695) in a panel of immunohistochemical markers is useful for distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma</title><title>BMC clinical pathology</title><addtitle>BMC Clin Pathol</addtitle><description>Distinguishing endocervical adenocarcinoma (ECA) from endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma (EMMA) is clinically significant in view of the differences in their management and prognosis. In this study, we used a panel of tumor markers to determine their ability to distinguish between primary endocervical adenocarcinoma and primary endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma. Immunohistochemistry using monoclonal antibodies to MUC1 (Ma695), p16, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and vimentin, was performed to examine 32 cases, including 18 EMMAs and 14 ECAs. For MUC1, cases were scored based on the percentage of staining pattern, apical, apical and cytoplasmic (A/C), or negative. For p16, cases were scored based on the percentage of cells stained. For the rest of the antibodies, semiquantitative scoring system was carried out. For MUC1, majority of EMMA (14 of 18 cases, 78%) showed A/C staining, whereas only few ECA (2 of 14, 14%) were positive. The difference of MUC1 expression in the two groups of malignancy was statistically significant (p &lt; 0.001). Staining for p16 was positive in 10 of 14 (71%) ECA and 4 of 18 (22%) EMMA. Estrogen receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 17 of 18 (94%) EMMA. Progesterone receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 16 of 18 (89%) EMMA. Vimentin was positive in 1 of 14 (7%) ECA, and 9 of 18 (50%) EMA, with median and range of 0 (0-6), and 1.5 (0-9) respectively. A panel of immunohistochemical markers including MUC1, p16, ER, PR, and vimentin is recommended, when there is morphological and clinical doubt as to the primary site of endocervical or endometrial origin.</description><issn>1472-6890</issn><issn>1472-6890</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1ks9vFCEUx4nR2Lp69Gq4qYdRGGYY9mJqNv5o0saLPRNgHl10gBWGGv-Y_q9lupvaxnh6PN6XDzy-D6GXlLyjVPD3tBvahos1aXhDH6Hju_zxvfURepbzD0LoIGj7FB1R3pE1b7tjdH0azFSyiwFHi88vNhS_OVd83b_FLmCFdyrAtJSc9yXErctzNFvwzqgJe5V-QsrYZVwy2DJhGxMeq8aFy-LytgasYf4NEDCEMRpIV7cnVRhvNzzMyS2kYlyIJWM1QohGpSX16jl6YtWU4cUhrtDF50_fN1-bs29fTjcfzxrNekGblgoxgNWWGg6CaNWPQOzIFVHANemZMdrCYDtNWe2tE2wYuV4P1nBOQAm2Qh_23F3RHkYDYU5qkrvkaot_ZFROPqwEt5WX8UpSJtq2ayvgZA_QLv4H8LBiopeLPXKxR_IKWqHXhzek-KtAnqV32cA0VQfqz8iBdVR0rGdV2eyVJsWcE9i7eyiRy1D8Q351v7u_6sMUsBvoFbfa</recordid><startdate>20060112</startdate><enddate>20060112</enddate><creator>Khoury, Thaer</creator><creator>Tan, Dongfeng</creator><creator>Wang, Jianmin</creator><creator>Intengan, Marilyn</creator><creator>Yang, Jun</creator><creator>Alrawi, Sadir</creator><creator>Yan, Peisha</creator><creator>Byrd, James C</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060112</creationdate><title>Inclusion of MUC1 (Ma695) in a panel of immunohistochemical markers is useful for distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma</title><author>Khoury, Thaer ; Tan, Dongfeng ; Wang, Jianmin ; Intengan, Marilyn ; Yang, Jun ; Alrawi, Sadir ; Yan, Peisha ; Byrd, James C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b3581-21887efbf1c6e80ba5de0fd6a0ae6b053ccbfe7f4b13a694837d6b97fc660ea83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Khoury, Thaer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Dongfeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Jianmin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Intengan, Marilyn</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alrawi, Sadir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yan, Peisha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Byrd, James C</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMC clinical pathology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Khoury, Thaer</au><au>Tan, Dongfeng</au><au>Wang, Jianmin</au><au>Intengan, Marilyn</au><au>Yang, Jun</au><au>Alrawi, Sadir</au><au>Yan, Peisha</au><au>Byrd, James C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Inclusion of MUC1 (Ma695) in a panel of immunohistochemical markers is useful for distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma</atitle><jtitle>BMC clinical pathology</jtitle><addtitle>BMC Clin Pathol</addtitle><date>2006-01-12</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>1</epage><pages>1-1</pages><artnum>1</artnum><issn>1472-6890</issn><eissn>1472-6890</eissn><abstract>Distinguishing endocervical adenocarcinoma (ECA) from endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma (EMMA) is clinically significant in view of the differences in their management and prognosis. In this study, we used a panel of tumor markers to determine their ability to distinguish between primary endocervical adenocarcinoma and primary endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma. Immunohistochemistry using monoclonal antibodies to MUC1 (Ma695), p16, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and vimentin, was performed to examine 32 cases, including 18 EMMAs and 14 ECAs. For MUC1, cases were scored based on the percentage of staining pattern, apical, apical and cytoplasmic (A/C), or negative. For p16, cases were scored based on the percentage of cells stained. For the rest of the antibodies, semiquantitative scoring system was carried out. For MUC1, majority of EMMA (14 of 18 cases, 78%) showed A/C staining, whereas only few ECA (2 of 14, 14%) were positive. The difference of MUC1 expression in the two groups of malignancy was statistically significant (p &lt; 0.001). Staining for p16 was positive in 10 of 14 (71%) ECA and 4 of 18 (22%) EMMA. Estrogen receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 17 of 18 (94%) EMMA. Progesterone receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 16 of 18 (89%) EMMA. Vimentin was positive in 1 of 14 (7%) ECA, and 9 of 18 (50%) EMA, with median and range of 0 (0-6), and 1.5 (0-9) respectively. A panel of immunohistochemical markers including MUC1, p16, ER, PR, and vimentin is recommended, when there is morphological and clinical doubt as to the primary site of endocervical or endometrial origin.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>16409624</pmid><doi>10.1186/1472-6890-6-1</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1472-6890
ispartof BMC clinical pathology, 2006-01, Vol.6 (1), p.1-1, Article 1
issn 1472-6890
1472-6890
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1382242
source PubMed Central Open Access; Springer Nature OA Free Journals; Access via BioMed Central; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
title Inclusion of MUC1 (Ma695) in a panel of immunohistochemical markers is useful for distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T17%3A58%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Inclusion%20of%20MUC1%20(Ma695)%20in%20a%20panel%20of%20immunohistochemical%20markers%20is%20useful%20for%20distinguishing%20between%20endocervical%20and%20endometrial%20mucinous%20adenocarcinoma&rft.jtitle=BMC%20clinical%20pathology&rft.au=Khoury,%20Thaer&rft.date=2006-01-12&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=1&rft.pages=1-1&rft.artnum=1&rft.issn=1472-6890&rft.eissn=1472-6890&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/1472-6890-6-1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E734184353%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=734184353&rft_id=info:pmid/16409624&rfr_iscdi=true