Gynecologic Pathology
Fatemeh Nili; Soheib Fathi; Mansoureh Tavakoli; Elham Mirzaian; Maryam Lotfi
Abstract
Background & Objective: Clear cell carcinoma (CCC) is an uncommon histopathologic subtype of ovarian and endometrial carcinoma. Due to the morphologic overlapping with other subtypes of ovarian and endometrial carcinomas, an accurate diagnosis is crucial.Methods: In this study, 31 cases of ovarian ...
Read More
Background & Objective: Clear cell carcinoma (CCC) is an uncommon histopathologic subtype of ovarian and endometrial carcinoma. Due to the morphologic overlapping with other subtypes of ovarian and endometrial carcinomas, an accurate diagnosis is crucial.Methods: In this study, 31 cases of ovarian clear cell carcinoma (OCCC), 28 endometrial clear cell carcinoma (ECCC), and 80 non-CCC subtypes (33 high-grade serous carcinomas of the ovary, 2 low-grade serous carcinomas, 10 ovarian endometrioid, 3 serous carcinomas and 29 endometrioid carcinomas of the endometrium) were investigated for immunohistochemical expression of AMACR. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for the distinction of OCCC and ECCC from other histopathologic subtypes were calculated.Results: Positive AMACR staining was seen in 18 OCCCs (58%) and 10 ECCCs (35.7%). In the non-clear cell group, 44 cases of ovarian (98%) and 25 cases of endometrial carcinoma (78%) showed negative results. Only one case of ovarian endometrioid carcinoma and 7 cases (22%) of endometrial endometrioid carcinomas revealed a positive reaction (P<0.05). Collectively, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of AMACR expression, for the diagnosis of OCCC were calculated as 58%, 98%, 94.7%, and 77.2%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were shown to be as 35.7%, 78.1%, 58.8%, and 58.1%, respectively in the endometrium.Conclusion: AMACR may be a highly specific immunohistochemical marker for the distinction of serous and clear cell carcinoma. A small percentage of endometrioid carcinoma may show positive staining. The sensitivity of this marker may not be higher than the other well-known Napsin-A IHC marker.
Uropathology
Ikram A. Hasan; Hiba Gaidan; Methaq Al-kaabi
Abstract
Background & Objective:Some prostatic lesions contain small suspicious foci for prostatic carcinoma in which the morphological features are equivocal. Two immunohistochemical markers namely, cytokeratin 34 beta E12 (Ck34βE12) and α-Methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR), were evaluated in these ...
Read More
Background & Objective:Some prostatic lesions contain small suspicious foci for prostatic carcinoma in which the morphological features are equivocal. Two immunohistochemical markers namely, cytokeratin 34 beta E12 (Ck34βE12) and α-Methylacyl-CoA racemase (AMACR), were evaluated in these lesions for a definitive diagnosis and avoiding misdiagnosis or overdiagnosis of prostatic carcinoma. Methods:A total of 90 paraffin embedded blocks of prostatic tissue were selected and categorized into three groups as follows: 50 cases of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), 20 cases of prostatic carcinoma, and 20 cases of benign prostatic lesions with suspicious foci labeled as ASAP (atypical small acinar proliferation) that occupy not more than 5% of the lesion. These cases were revised for histopathological diagnosis and stained with two immunohistochemical markers: Ck34βE12 and AMACR. Result:While 92.9% of BPH were positive for Ck34βE12, 96% of prostatic carcinoma were negative for this marker (P=0.0001). Regarding AMACR, 92.9% of BPH cases were negative, but 92% of prostatic carcinoma cases were positive for this marker (P=0.0001). Out of 20 cases of BPH, 15 cases containing suspicious foci showed Ck34βE12+/AMACR- (diagnosis: benign), but 5 cases were Ck34βE12-/AMACR+, for which the diagnosis changed to prostatic carcinoma (P=0.04). Conclusion :Immunohistochemical staining with Ck34βE12 and AMACR improved the diagnostic performance and also increased confidence level for establishing definite diagnosis in cases with suspicious foci, in which the morphological features were equivocal. This could help to avoid misdiagnosis or overdiagnosis of prostatic carcinoma that would eventually improve the management of the patient and subsequently the prognosis.