Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-2 (2)

Clipboard (0)
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Inclusion of MUC1 (Ma695) in a panel of immunohistochemical markers is useful for distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma* 
Distinguishing endocervical adenocarcinoma (ECA) from endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma (EMMA) is clinically significant in view of the differences in their management and prognosis. In this study, we used a panel of tumor markers to determine their ability to distinguish between primary endocervical adenocarcinoma and primary endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma.
Immunohistochemistry using monoclonal antibodies to MUC1 (Ma695), p16, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and vimentin, was performed to examine 32 cases, including 18 EMMAs and 14 ECAs. For MUC1, cases were scored based on the percentage of staining pattern, apical, apical and cytoplasmic (A/C), or negative. For p16, cases were scored based on the percentage of cells stained. For the rest of the antibodies, semiquantitative scoring system was carried out.
For MUC1, majority of EMMA (14 of 18 cases, 78%) showed A/C staining, whereas only few ECA (2 of 14, 14%) were positive. The difference of MUC1 expression in the two groups of malignancy was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Staining for p16 was positive in 10 of 14 (71%) ECA and 4 of 18 (22%) EMMA. Estrogen receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 17 of 18 (94%) EMMA. Progesterone receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 16 of 18 (89%) EMMA. Vimentin was positive in 1 of 14 (7%) ECA, and 9 of 18 (50%) EMA, with median and range of 0 (0–6), and 1.5 (0–9) respectively.
A panel of immunohistochemical markers including MUC1, p16, ER, PR, and vimentin is recommended, when there is morphological and clinical doubt as to the primary site of endocervical or endometrial origin.
PMCID: PMC1382242  PMID: 16409624
2.  Tissue eosinophilia: a morphologic marker for assessing stromal invasion in laryngeal squamous neoplasms 
The assessment of tumor invasion of underlying benign stroma in neoplastic squamous proliferation of the larynx may pose a diagnostic challenge, particularly in small biopsy specimens that are frequently tangentially sectioned. We studied whether thresholds of an eosinophilic response to laryngeal squamous neoplasms provides an adjunctive histologic criterion for determining the presence of invasion.
Eighty-seven(n = 87) cases of invasive squamous cell carcinoma and preinvasive squamous neoplasia were evaluated. In each case, the number of eosinophils per high power field(eosinophils/hpf), and per 10 hpf in the tissue adjacent to the neoplastic epithelium, were counted and tabulated. For statistical purposes, the elevated eosinophils were defined and categorized as: focally and moderately elevated (5–9 eos/hpf), focally and markedly increased(>10/hpf), diffusely and moderately elevated(5–19 eos/10hpf), and diffusely and markedly increased (>20/10hpf).
In the invasive carcinoma, eosinophil counts were elevated focally and /or diffusely, more frequently seen than in non-invasive neoplastic lesions. The increased eosinophil counts, specifically >10hpf, and >20/10hpf, were all statistically significantly associated with stromal invasion. Greater than 10 eosinophils/hpf and/or >20 eosinophils/10hpf had highest predictive power, with a sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of 82%, 93%, 96% and 80%, 100% and 100%, respectively. Virtually, greater than 20 eosinophils/10 hpf was diagnostic for tumor invasion in our series.
Our study suggests for the first time that the elevated eosinophil count in squamous neoplasia of the larynx is a morphologic feature associated with tumor invasion. When the number of infiltrating eosinophils exceeds 10/hpf and or >20/10 hpf in a laryngeal biopsy with squamous neoplasia, it represents an indicator for the possibility of tumor invasion. Similarly, the presence of eosinophils meeting these thresholds in an excisional specimen should prompt a thorough evaluation for invasiveness, when evidence of invasion is absent, or when invasion is suspected by conventional criteria in the initial sections.
PMCID: PMC548265  PMID: 15638930

Results 1-2 (2)