Uropathology
Masood Soltanipur; Mohammadreza Jalali Nadoushan; Hossein Yarmohammadi
Abstract
Background & Objective: Prostatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) is one of the most common tumors worldwide. Immunohistochemical expression of cytokeratins has been evaluated in the diagnosis and prognosis of tumors. The aim of the present study is the evaluation of Cytokeratin-7 (Ck-7) and Cytokeratin-19 ...
Read More
Background & Objective: Prostatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) is one of the most common tumors worldwide. Immunohistochemical expression of cytokeratins has been evaluated in the diagnosis and prognosis of tumors. The aim of the present study is the evaluation of Cytokeratin-7 (Ck-7) and Cytokeratin-19 (Ck-19) expression and its relationship with Gleason score in patients with PAC.Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 78 samples from 78 patients with PAC referred to Mostafa Khomeini Hospital were gathered. Samples were immunohistochemically stained by Ck-7 and Ck-19 markers. The percentage of each marker in tumor cells was determined, and its relationship with Gleason scores and Gleason grade groups was analysed by SPSS version 24.Results: The expression of Ck-7 and Ck-19 were seen in 37.2% and 82.1% of samples, respectively. The mean of Ck-7 expression in tumor cells was 4.98%±7.19 (ranged 0 to 26%), while the mean of Ck-19 expression was 41.02%±23.36 (ranged 0 to 78%). There was no relationship between Ck-7 expression with Gleason scores and Gleason grade groups. However, Ck-19 expression was increased in higher Gleason scores and Gleason grade groups (P<0.001). No relationship was found between age and Ck-7 (P=0.309) and Ck-19 (P=0.375).Conclusion: The Ck-7 expression in PAC samples is weak and focal and had no relationship with the Gleason scores and Gleason grade groups. However, Ck-19 expression in PAC was high and was associated with tumor dedifferentiation of samples. There was no relationship between the expression of both markers with the patient's age.
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.
