Comparing the Diagnostic Outcomes of Staining Various Breast Lesions with Either Anti-CK 5/6 or Anti-CK 5

Document Type: Original Research

Authors

1 DPLM, KK Women’s and Children Hospital, Singapore

2 MSc, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College London, England, UK

3 Department of Surgery and Cancer, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College London, England, UK

4 Department of Histopathology, Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College London, England, UK

10.30699/ijp.14.2.113

Abstract

Background and Objective: Anti-CK5/6 monoclonal antibodies have an established role in breast disease diagnosis. Anti-CK5 monoclonal antibodies have recently become commercially available. There has been growing interest in the staining characteristics of anti-CK5 and its potential diagnostic role in place of anti-CK5/6. We aim to compare and contrast the staining characteristics of anti-CK5/6 vs anti-CK5.
 Material and Methods: 58 tissue blocks containing 122 different lesions were selected from tissue archives. Two specimens (groups) were taken from each lesion One (group) was stained with anti-CK5 and the other (group) with anti-CK5/6 monoclonal antibodies, using the Streptavidin-biotin immuno-peroxidase method. The two groups of slides were compared and contrasted for lesion staining pattern and for intensity, using light microscopy.
Results: Results showed that the diagnostic staining pattern was exactly the same in both anti-CK5 and anti-CK5/6 groups, and also showed that anti-CK5, stained most of the lesions more intensely than anti-CK5/6.
Conclusion: Anti-CK5 performed at least as well (for lesion-pattern staining), and better (for lesion staining intensity) than did anti-CK5/6 in the diagnosis of a wide range of breast tissues and lesions. It may be justified to safely replace anti-CK5/6 with anti-CK5 in future routine clinical use, with resultant diagnostic and economic benefits.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Fletcher SW, Elmore JG. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003 Apr 24;348(17):1672-80. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp021804
  2. Bassett LW, Gambhir S. Breast imaging for the 1990s. Semin Oncol. 1991 Apr;18(2):80-6.
  3. McDivitt RW. Breast Carcinoma. Hum Pathol. 1978Jan;9(1):3-21.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0046-8177(78)80003-3
  4. O'Malley FP, Pinder SE, Mulligan AM. Breast Pathology E-Book: A Volume in the Series: Foundations in Diagnostic Pathology. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2011 Aug 1.
  5. Page DL, Salhany KE, Jensen RA, Dupont WD. Subsequent breast carcinoma risk after biopsy with atypia in a breast papilloma. Cancer. 1996 Jul 15;78(2):258-66.
  6. Alison M. The cancer handbook. John Wiley & Sons; 2007 Jun 22. .p.24-643. https://doi.org/10.1002/978047 0025079.chap42.pub2
  7. Tavassoli FA. Pathology of the Breast. 2nd ed. Norwalk, CT, Appleton-Lange; 1999.
  8. Gudi M, Stamp GWH. Breast. In: Alison MR (ed.) The cancer handbook. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2007. p.624-643.
  9. DakoCytomation. Monoclonal Mouse Anti-Human Cytokeratin 5/6. Denmark: DakoCytomation;2002.
  10. Boecker W, Moll R, Dervan P, Buerger H, Poremba C, Diallo RI, et al. Usual ductal hyperplasia of the breast is a committed stem (progenitor) cell lesion distinct from atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ. J Pathol. 2002 Dec;198(4):458-67.
    https://doi.org/10.1002/path.1241
  11. Böcker W, Moll R, Poremba C, Holland R, Van Diest PJ, Dervan P, et al. Common adult stem cells in the human breast give rise to glandular and myoepithelial cell lineages: a new cell biological concept. Lab Invest. 2002 Jun;82(6):737-46.
    https://doi.org/10.1097/01.LAB.0000017371.72714.C5
  12. Moll R. Cytokeratins as markers of differentiation in the diagnosis of epithelial tumors. Subcell Biochem. 1998;31:205-62.
  13. Lerwill MF. Current practical applications of diagnostic immunohistochemistry in breast pathology. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004 Aug;28(8):1076-91.
    https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000126780.10029.f0
  14. Lacroix-Triki M, Mery E, Voigt JJ, Istier L, Rochaix P. Value of cytokeratin 5/6 immunostaining using D5/16 B4 antibody in the spectrum of proliferative intraepithelial lesions of the breast. A comparative study with 34βE12 antibody. Virchows Arch. 2003 Jun;442(6):548-54.
  15. Bhargava R, Beriwal S, McManus K, Dabbs DJ. CK5 is more sensitive than CK5/6 in identifying the “basal-like” phenotype of breast carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2008 Nov;130(5):724-30.
    https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCP3KFF1LTYWQIY
  16. Leica Microsystems. NovocastraTM Lyophilized Mouse Monoclonal Antibody Cytokeratin 5. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Leica Biosystems; 2008.
  17. Polak JM, Van Noorden S. Introduction to immunocytochemistry. 3rd ed. Oxford: Bios Scientific Publishers; 2003.
  18. Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Allred DC. Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999 May;17(5):1474-81.
    https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1999.17.5.1474
  19. Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Allred DC. Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999 May;17(5):1474-81.
    https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1999.17.5.1474