Research
Progesterone receptor does not improve the performance and test effectiveness of the conventional 3-marker panel, consisting of estrogen receptor, vimentin and carcinoembryonic antigen in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray extension study
-
* Corresponding author: Chih-Ping Han hanhaly@gmail.com
- † Equal contributors
1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chung-Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
2 Institute of Medicine, Chung-Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
3 Clinical Trial Center, Chung-Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
4 Department of Medical Imaging, Chung-Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
5 Department of Medical Imaging and Radiological Science, Chung-Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
6 Department of Pathology, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
7 David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA
8 Department of Pathology, Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
9 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, and Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University School of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan
Journal of Translational Medicine 2009, 7:37 doi:10.1186/1479-5876-7-37
Published: 28 May 2009Abstract
Objective
Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) are uterine malignancies that have differing biological behaviors. The choice of an appropriate therapeutic plan rests on the tumor's site of origin. In this study, we propose to evaluate whether PR adds value to the performance and test effectiveness of the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.
Methods
A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 38 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 24 EMA. Tissue microarray (TMA) sections were immunostained with 4 antibodies, using the avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and extent of the immunohistochemical (IHC) reactions were appraised using a semi-quantitative scoring system.
Results
The three markers (ER, Vim and CEA) and their respective panel expressions showed statistically significant (p < 0.05) frequency differences between ECA and EMA tumors. Although the additional ancillary PR-marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (p < 0.05) between ECA and EMA tumors, it did not demonstrate any supplementary benefit to the 3-marker panel.
Conclusion
According to our data, when histomorphological and clinical doubt exists as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is easier, sufficient and appropriate to use in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Although the 4-marker panel containing PR also reveals statistically significant results, the PR-marker offers no supplemental benefit to the pre-existing 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel in the diagnostic distinction between ECA and EMA.