A reappraisal of three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA), four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR), and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels in the diagnostic distinction between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study

Adenocarcinoma of the uterine cervix: Pathologic features, treatment options, clinical outcome and prognostic variables

Adenocarcinoma accounts for 10-25% of all cervical cancers, and its relative and absolute rate has raised over the past decades. Most, but not all the authors, reported that adenocarcinoma has a greater propensity to lymph node, ovarian and distant metastases and a worse prognosis compared with squamous cell carcinoma. However, whether histologic type is an independent prognostic factor is still a debated issue. Moreover, adenocarcinoma is a very heterogenous disease, including different histological subtypes. Whereas radical hysterectomy and definitive radiotherapy achieve the same clinical outcome in early stage squamous cell carcinoma, surgery seems to obtain better survival compared with definitive radiotherapy in early stage adenocarcinoma. Chemoradiation is the standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer regardless of histologic type, although several retrospective studies showed that patients with adenocarcinoma were more likely to die than those with squamous cell carcinoma both before and after concurrent chemoradiation era. The prognostic relevance of biological variables, such as cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors, p53, cyclooxygenase-2 [COX-2], cell surface tyrosine-kinases and programmed death-ligand [PD-L1], is still under investigation. Palliative chemotherapy is the only treatment option for persistent or recurrent cervical adenocarcinoma not amenable with surgery and radiotherapy. The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors as well as a therapeutic strategy targeting cell surface tyrosine kinases should be adequately explored in this clinical setting.

Prognostic Significance of Carcinoembryonic Antigen Staining in Cancer Tissues of Gastric Cancer Patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess the significance of the correlation among tissue carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) expression with serum CEA (sCEA) levels and long-term survival to highlight the clinical prognostic significance of tissue CEA expression in gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

Immunohistological method and radioimmunoassay were used to assess tissue and sCEA expression, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine correlations, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to investigate the prognostic significance.

RESULTS

Our results demonstrate that tissue CEA in gastric cancer is significantly correlated with preoperative sCEA levels (p = 0.031), depth of invasion (p = 0.001), lymph node metastasis (p < 0.001), distant metastasis (p = 0.001), and TNM staging (p < 0.001). The 5-year survival rates were 67.6, 53.9, and 40.1 % for negatively, moderately, and intensely positively stained tissues (p < 0.001), and 57.0 and 37.9 % for serum with normal and elevated CEA expression (p = 0.031). Multivariate analysis revealed that tissue CEA can be considered an independent prognostic factor. Further analysis illustrated that patients with negative expression in both tissue and serum had better prognosis compared with those positively expressing CEA in both tissue and serum and/or those positively expressing CEA in either tissue or serum (p < 0.001). Our results also demonstrated that patients with negative tissue CEA staining and elevated sCEA expression had a better 5-year survival.

CONCLUSION

Tissue CEA expression in gastric cancer is directly correlated with sCEA levels and long-term prognosis. Thus, tissue CEA expression can be considered as a useful biomarker to improve the interpretation of sCEA levels in predicting long-term survival.

Endometrial carcinomas: a review emphasizing overlapping and distinctive morphological and immunohistochemical features

This review focuses on the most common diagnostic pitfalls and helpful morphologic and immunohistochemical markers in the differential diagnosis between the different subtypes of endometrial carcinomas, including: (1) endometrioid versus serous glandular carcinoma, (2) papillary endometrioid (not otherwise specified, villoglandular and nonvillous variants) versus serous carcinoma, (3) endometrioid carcinoma with spindle cells, hyalinization, and heterologous components versus malignant mixed müllerian tumor, (4) high-grade endometrioid versus serous carcinoma, (5) high-grade endometrioid carcinoma versus dedifferentiated or undifferentiated carcinoma, (6) endometrioid carcinoma with clear cells versus clear cell carcinoma, (7) clear cell versus serous carcinoma, (8) undifferentiated versus neuroendocrine carcinoma, (9) carcinoma of mixed cell types versus carcinoma with ambiguous features or variant morphology, (10) Lynch syndrome-related endometrial carcinomas, (11) high-grade or undifferentiated carcinoma versus nonepithelial uterine tumors. As carcinomas in the endometrium are not always primary, this review also discusses the differential diagnosis between endometrial carcinomas and other gynecological malignancies such as endocervical (glandular) and ovarian/peritoneal serous carcinoma, as well as with extra-gynecologic metastases (mainly breast and colon).

Distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas: is a 2-marker (Vim/CEA) panel enough?

Gynecological pathologists are used to operating many panels of various markers in combination for the diagnostic distinction between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. The conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is the most promising tool. In this study, our aim is to investigate whether a 2-marker panel is enough to distinguish between these two gynecologic malignancies. Additionally, we wish to determine which one is the most favorable among eight panels tested, including six 2-marker (ER/CEA, PR/CEA, Vim/CEA, ER/p16(INK4a), PR/p16(INK4a), Vim/p16(INK4a)) and two 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA, ER/Vim/p16(INK)) panels. A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 primary endocervical adenocarcinomas and 21 primary endometrial adenocarcinomas. Utilizing the avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method, tissue array sections were immunostained with five commercially available antibodies (ER, Vim, CEA, PR, and p16(INK4a)) to evaluate their individual frequencies of expression. We found that all eight aforementioned panels showed an encouraging range of overall accuracy (69.2% to 78.3%). However, one panel of 2-markers (Vim, CEA) exhibited the most efficiency (78.3%) in the diagnostic distinction between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. Based on the analyzed data, we conclude that the 2-marker (Vim/CEA) panel seems adequate to be an appropriate, convenient, and efficient means to distinguish between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas. Even though there were a limited number of cases, this study still provides valuable references to help avoid wasting resources and unnecessary marker testing.