Diagnostic Pathology
Reza Gheitasi; Esmaeil Sadeghi; Mohammad Jafari
Abstract
Background & Objective: Prostate adenocarcinoma is the most common malignancy in males, and the urothelial bladder carcinoma is also prevalent. The histological characteristic of these two tumors is very similar in high-grade cases, and their differentiation is difficult. This study was performed ...
Read More
Background & Objective: Prostate adenocarcinoma is the most common malignancy in males, and the urothelial bladder carcinoma is also prevalent. The histological characteristic of these two tumors is very similar in high-grade cases, and their differentiation is difficult. This study was performed to compare the immunohistochemistry panel of high-grade prostate adenocarcinomas and high-grade urothelial bladder carcinomas.Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 36 cases of prostate adenocarcinoma and 36 urothelial bladder carcinoma samples were collected from the pathology department of Shahid Beheshti Hospital in Hamedan. For each sample, expression of Cytokeratin 7, high-molecular-weight cytokeratin and Prostate-specific antigen markers was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Comparison of expression of these markers in high-grade bladder tumors and prostate tumors was made by SPSS 25 using Chi-square test.Results: In this study, the Cytokeratin 7 positivity was seen in 88.9% of bladder cancer versus 27.8% of prostate cancer samples. High-molecular-weight cytokeratin positive immunoreactivity was noted in 55.6% of bladder cancer and 5.6% of prostate cancer samples. Prostate-specific antigen marker showed positive results in 94.4% of prostate cancer samples, but no positivity was evident in those of bladder cancer.Conclusion: A panel of immunohistochemical stains can be used to differentiate high-grade prostate adenocarcinoma from urothelial bladder carcinoma in those cases which are challenging to diagnose.
Diagnostic Pathology
Amir Hossein Jafarian; Khatoone Mirshekar; Sare Etemad; Masoumeh Jafaripour; Mansoore Darijani; Maryam Sheikhi; Hossein Ayatollahi; Sepideh Shakeri; Seyyede Fatemeh Shams; Saeed Davari
Volume 13, Issue 4 , October 2018, , Pages 415-421
Abstract
Background and Objective: BRAF mutations were studied in various populations for prostate carcinoma (PC); however, mutations in BRAF gene are unusual compared to KRAS. Oncogenic activating of BRAF mutations were studied lately in almost 0%-10% of prostate cancer cases. Methods: In this retrospective ...
Read More
Background and Objective: BRAF mutations were studied in various populations for prostate carcinoma (PC); however, mutations in BRAF gene are unusual compared to KRAS. Oncogenic activating of BRAF mutations were studied lately in almost 0%-10% of prostate cancer cases. Methods: In this retrospective study, we gathered 100 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples of prostate adenocarcinoma. A hundred archived samples of adjacent benign prostatic hyperplasia were chosen as normal control. This study was done in pathology laboratory of Qaem Hospital during 2013-2015.Results: Total number of 200 PC and normal cases was investigated for BRAF V600E mutation. The BRAF V600E mutation was found in only 4 patients but it was not detected in normal cases. There were no significant differences between patient and control groups for this mutation (P>0.99). The frequency of BRAF V600E mutation was not significant in different age groups (P>0.285); the most frequency was related to the age range of 71-80. No significant difference was observed between tumor grade and BRAF mutation (P=0.21).Conclusion: According to our findings, BRAF gene mutations did not play essential role in PC. Therefore, anti-BRAF (V600E) could not be considered as a proper target for therapy.
