Abstract
3/2016
vol. 67
Original paper
Serous versus high-grade endometrioid endometrial carcinoma: immunohistochemistry of RFP is not useful for differentiation
- Department of Pathology, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
- Department of Pathology, Ankara Atatürk Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
- Department of Biostatistics, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
- Department of Pathology, Etlik Zübeyde Hanim Research and Teaching Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
- Department of Pathology, Bas‚kent University, Ankara, Turkey
Pol J Pathol 2016; 67 (3): 221-227
Online publish date: 2016/11/25
We evaluated the immunohistochemical expression of ret finger protein (RFP) along with conventional immunohistochemical markers in endometrioid and serous carcinomas of the endometrium.
A total of 124 endometrial carcinoma cases (24 grade 1 endometrioid, 60 grade 3 endometrioid, 40 serous) were retrieved from pathology archives. Tissue microarrays were constructed. The expression of RFP, WT1, ER, PR, p53 and p16 was examined immunohistochemically. Sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, statistic for interobserver reproducibility, Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact tests were performed for statistical analyses.
The mean RFP score was 1.54 in grade 1 endometrioid, 4.31 in grade 3 endometrioid, and 6.31 in serous carcinomas (p < 0.001). Overall, RFP scores were higher both in serous and grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma (p > 0.05), and significantly lower in grade 1 endometrioid carcinoma (p < 0.05). p16 and p53 staining patterns were able to differentiate between high-grade endometrioid and serous carcinoma (p < 0.001). ER, PR and WT-1 did not reach statistical significance for subtyping. The values of the general agreement between the observers were 0.737 and 0.727 for endometrioid and serous carcinomas respectively (p < 0.001).
Diffuse p53 and p16 staining provides the most sensitive and specific immunomarkers for differentiating high-grade endometrioid and serous carcinomas.
A total of 124 endometrial carcinoma cases (24 grade 1 endometrioid, 60 grade 3 endometrioid, 40 serous) were retrieved from pathology archives. Tissue microarrays were constructed. The expression of RFP, WT1, ER, PR, p53 and p16 was examined immunohistochemically. Sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, statistic for interobserver reproducibility, Kruskal-Wallis test, Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact tests were performed for statistical analyses.
The mean RFP score was 1.54 in grade 1 endometrioid, 4.31 in grade 3 endometrioid, and 6.31 in serous carcinomas (p < 0.001). Overall, RFP scores were higher both in serous and grade 3 endometrioid carcinoma (p > 0.05), and significantly lower in grade 1 endometrioid carcinoma (p < 0.05). p16 and p53 staining patterns were able to differentiate between high-grade endometrioid and serous carcinoma (p < 0.001). ER, PR and WT-1 did not reach statistical significance for subtyping. The values of the general agreement between the observers were 0.737 and 0.727 for endometrioid and serous carcinomas respectively (p < 0.001).
Diffuse p53 and p16 staining provides the most sensitive and specific immunomarkers for differentiating high-grade endometrioid and serous carcinomas.
Keywords
endometrial neoplasms, immunohistochemistry, RFP, serous carcinoma, endometrioid carcinoma
Integrated with
