Use of Immunohistochemical Stains in Epithelial Lesions of the Breast

Study of the Immunohistochemical Expression of p63 in Benign Lesions and Carcinoma of the Breast at a Tertiary Hospital in South India

BACKGROUND

Invasive breast carcinoma is among the most common female cancers worldwide, causing high morbidity and mortality. Considerable disagreement in the interpretation of diagnostically challenging breast lesions based on histology alone has been documented. One of the essential histopathological findings that help distinguish benign from malignant lesions is the presence of the myoepithelial cell layer. Myoepithelial markers such as tumor protein 63 (p63) help distinguish invasive carcinoma from benign proliferations. p63 antibody is superior to other myoepithelial markers as it selectively stains the nuclei and is negative in stromal cells.

OBJECTIVE

To study the expression of p63 in various histological subtypes and grades of breast carcinomas.

METHODS

After routine hematoxylin and eosin stain, 65 cases of breast lesions were subjected to immunohistochemistry for p63 antigen using Novacastra ready-to-use monoclonal antibody p6. All cases were analyzed for p63 expression, and its staining arrangement was interpreted.

RESULTS

In all benign lesions, immunoreactivity was noted in the myoepithelial cells, forming a continuous layer surrounding the luminal epithelial cells. The benign papillary lesions showed p63 staining in the fibrovascular core of the papillary fronds and at the periphery. A few single myoepithelial cells stained by p63 were also seen scattered discontinuously in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). All invasive carcinomas and encapsulated papillary carcinomas were completely devoid of peripheral p63 staining of myoepithelial cells.

CONCLUSION

p63 is a specific nuclear marker of myoepithelial cells in the breast and can, therefore, aid in distinguishing invasive ductal carcinoma from DCIS or rare questionable hyperplastic lesions. They also play a significant role in distinguishing various papillary lesions of the breast and, hence, can be incorporated into routine reporting for definitive diagnosis and accurate treatment.

Immunohistochemistry for diagnosis and prognosis of breast cancer: a review

Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignant tumor and main oncologic cause of mortality in women. Although most diagnosis of breast pathology is accomplished using hematoxylin and eosin stained sections, some cases require immunohistochemistry for proper evaluation. We investigated the latter cases including distinctions between ductal and lobular carcinoma, in situ and invasive carcinoma, typical ductal hyperplasia and atypical ductal hyperplasia/ductal carcinoma in situ, papillary and spindle cell lesion assessment, metastasis evaluation, and assessment of prognostic and therapy markers. E-cadherin is used to differentiate ductal and lobular carcinoma; 34βE12, CK8, p120 catenin and β-catenin also produce consistent results. Myoepithelial cell (MEC) stains are used to evaluate in situ and invasive carcinoma; calponin, smooth muscle myosin heavy chain and p63 are sensitive/specific markers. 34βE12 and CK5/6 are positive in ductal hyperplasia, which enables its differentiation from atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ. CK 5/6, ER and MEC markers are consistent options for evaluating papillary lesions. Spindle cell lesions can be assessed using β-catenin, SMA, CD34, p63, CKs and hormone receptors. It is important to differentiate primary carcinomas from metastases; the most commonly used markers to identify breast origin include mammaglobin, GCDFP-15, GATA3 and ER, although none of these is completely sensitive or specific. Immunohistochemistry can be used to evaluate central prognostic and predictive factors including molecular subtypes, HER2, hormone receptors, proliferation markers (Ki-67) and lymph-vascular invasion markers including ERG, CD31, CD34, factor VIII and podoplanin. Owing to the complexity of mammary lesions, diagnosis also depends on each particular situation, evaluation of cytological characteristics revealed by immunochemistry and correlation with histological findings.

Core needle biopsy of benign, borderline and in-situ problematic lesions of the breast: Diagnosis, differential diagnosis and immunohistochemistry

Core needle biopsy (CNB) is the most common sampling technique for the histologic evaluation of breast abnormalities. Diagnosing benign proliferative, borderline and some in-situ lesions in CNB is challenging and subject to a significant degree of interobserver variability. In addition, due to the inherent limitations of CNB, "upgrading" to a more significant pathology at excision is an important consideration for some lesions. Pathologists carry a major responsibility in patient diagnosis, risk stratification and management. Familiarity with the histologic features and the clinical significance of these common and problematic lesions encountered in CNB is necessary for adequate treatment and patient follow-up. This review will focus on benign, atypical and in-situ epithelial proliferations, papillary lesions, radial sclerosing lesions, adenosis and cellular fibroepithelial lesions. Highlights of histologic features, useful strategies for accurate diagnosis, basic immunohistochemistry and management will be presented.

Awareness and current knowledge of breast cancer

Breast cancer remains a worldwide public health dilemma and is currently the most common tumour in the globe. Awareness of breast cancer, public attentiveness, and advancement in breast imaging has made a positive impact on recognition and screening of breast cancer. Breast cancer is life-threatening disease in females and the leading cause of mortality among women population. For the previous two decades, studies related to the breast cancer has guided to astonishing advancement in our understanding of the breast cancer, resulting in further proficient treatments. Amongst all the malignant diseases, breast cancer is considered as one of the leading cause of death in post menopausal women accounting for 23% of all cancer deaths. It is a global issue now, but still it is diagnosed in their advanced stages due to the negligence of women regarding the self inspection and clinical examination of the breast. This review addresses anatomy of the breast, risk factors, epidemiology of breast cancer, pathogenesis of breast cancer, stages of breast cancer, diagnostic investigations and treatment including chemotherapy, surgery, targeted therapies, hormone replacement therapy, radiation therapy, complementary therapies, gene therapy and stem-cell therapy etc for breast cancer.

P40 Immunostain Does Not Outperform p63 as a Myoepithelial Cell Marker in the Daily Practice of Breast Pathology

P40 antibody has been shown to be a more specific squamous and basal cell marker compared with p63. As detection of myoepithelial cells (MECs) plays a critical role in breast pathology, and the fact that p40 targets an isoform of p63, this study was designed to compare these antibodies in a variety of lesions, especially those with an sclerotic stroma and carcinoma in situ. All studied lesions were selected from the daily cases of the 3 authors and stained with p63, p40, and calponin immunohistochemical stains. Thirty-four cases (and 19 internal controls) were included. Seventy percent constituted sclerotic lesions (12 cases) and ductal carcinoma in situ (12 cases). P40 and p63 stained all lesions and showed a similar patchy staining pattern in 50% of ductal carcinoma in situ and sclerotic lesions. Compared with internal controls, p40 and p63 demonstrated decreased staining intensity in up to 70% and 8% of all cases, respectively, with no cross-reactivity with mesenchymal cells and minor cross-reactivity with epithelial cells. In our study, p40 did not outperform p63 as a MEC marker. p40 showed a decreased intensity in a higher number of cases (P<0.0001). In our opinion, p63 continues to be the best nuclear marker for the detection of MECs in the daily practice of breast pathology.

Characteristics of a Breast Pathology Consultation Practice

CONTEXT

- Intradepartmental consultation is a routine practice commonly used for new diagnoses. Expert interinstitutional case review provides insight into particularly challenging cases.

OBJECTIVE

- To investigate the practice of breast pathology consultation at a large tertiary care center.

DESIGN

- We reviewed breast pathology cases sent for private consultation and internal cases reviewed by multiple pathologists at a tertiary center. Requisitions and reports were evaluated for diagnostic reason for consultation, rate of multiple pathologist review at the tertiary center, use of immunohistochemistry, and, for private consultation cases, type of sender and concordance with the outside diagnosis.

RESULTS

- In the 985 private consultation cases, the most frequent reasons for review were borderline atypia (292 of 878; 33.3%), papillary lesion classification (151 of 878; 17.2%), evaluating invasion (123 of 878; 14%), subtyping carcinoma (75 of 878; 8.5%), and spindle cell (67 of 878; 7.6%) and fibroepithelial (65 of 878; 7.4%) lesion classification. Of 4981 consecutive internal cases, 358 (7.2%) were reviewed, most frequently for borderline atypia (90 of 358; 25.1%), subtyping carcinoma (63 of 358; 17.6%), staging/prognostic features (59 of 358; 16.5%), fibroepithelial lesion classification (45 of 358; 12.6%), evaluating invasion (37 of 358; 10.3%), and papillary (20 of 358; 5.6%) and spindle cell (18 of 358; 5.0%) lesion classification. Of all internal cases, those with a final diagnosis of atypia had a significantly higher rate of review (58 of 241; 24.1%) than those with benign (119 of 2933; 4.1%) or carcinoma (182 of 1807; 10.1%) diagnoses. Immunohistochemistry aided in diagnosis of 39.7% (391 of 985) and 21.2% (76 of 359) of consultation and internally reviewed cases, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

- This study confirms areas of breast pathology that represent diagnostic challenge and supports that pathologists are appropriately using expert consultation.