NY-BR-1 and PAX8 immunoreactivity in breast, gynecologic tract, and other CK7+ carcinomas: potential use for determining site of origin

Diagnostic roles of PAX8 immunohistochemistry in ovarian tumors

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to elucidate the diagnostic roles of PAX8 immunohistochemistry in various ovarian tumors.

METHODS

We searched through the PubMed database and selected the eligible studies to perform the meta-analysis. The PAX8 immunohistochemical expression rates of various ovarian tumors, including primary and metastatic carcinomas, were analyzed. In addition, the subgroup analysis based on tumor behaviors was performed.

RESULTS

The PAX8 expression rates were 0.056 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.008-0.307), 0.400 (95% CI 0.228-0.600), 0.741 (95% CI 0.578-0.857), and 0.738 (95% CI 0.666-0.799) in normal ovary and benign, borderline, and malignant ovarian tumors, respectively. The PAX8 expression rates of serous and transitional cell carcinomas were 0.937 (95% CI 0.882-0.967) and 0.918 (95% CI 0.841-0.959). In addition, the PAX8 expression rate of mucinous carcinomas was 0.393 (95% CI 0.285-0.512). However, metastatic carcinomas showed a significantly lower PAX8 expression rate than primary ovarian cancers (P < 0.001 in the meta-regression test). In cytologic specimens, PAX8 expression rates of serous and endometrioid carcinomas were 0.905 (95% CI 0.832-0.948) and 0.714 (95% CI 0.327-0.928), respectively.

CONCLUSION

PAX8 expression rate was significantly higher in serous ovarian tumors than in mucinous ovarian tumors. In addition, PAX8 expression rates were significantly higher in primary ovarian cancers than in metastatic carcinomas.

Possible Ovarian and Peritoneal Carcinoma Presenting in a Mediastinal Lymph Node and Pleural Effusion: A Case Report and Review of the Literature

Ovarian carcinoma often doesn't show noticeable symptoms and is frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage. It is the most fatal cancer within the gynecologic system. Our understanding of ovarian pathology is limited, necessitating the use of multiple markers to accurately detect ovarian cancer, particularly when it presents abnormally, such as in pleural effusion or lymph nodes. A 45-year-old woman presented to the emergency room (ER) due to abdominal pain lasting for two weeks. A computed tomography (CT) scan revealed peritoneal carcinomatosis accompanied by ascites and calcification in the lymph nodes. The likely primary sources were determined to be mucinous adenocarcinomas from either the colon or ovary. Following the CT findings, a fine needle aspiration was conducted on a perigastric lymph node. Histopathology results indicated a "poorly differentiated carcinoma [with] malignant cells present." Subsequently, a PowerPort was inserted, and adjuvant chemotherapy commenced two days later, utilizing a combination of carboplatin, bevacizumab, and paclitaxel. Paracentesis was performed, yielding clear-yellow fluid. However, abdominal fullness gradually increased again after paracentesis. The patient began experiencing more intense abdominal pain, particularly in the left lower quadrant. Surgical exploration revealed widespread disease involvement throughout the intestines. Our patient exhibited an atypical manifestation of ovarian carcinoma, challenging its identification due to ectopic foci and the absence of many distinctly identifiable markers. Through comprehensive testing and a process of elimination, we successfully differentiated ovarian carcinoma from other potential cancers. The conclusive histopathological report, along with a markedly elevated CA-125 level, provided substantial support for the probable final diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma. Despite numerous advancements in staining and identification techniques, the diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma remains inadequately understood. Identifying ovarian carcinoma without clear visualization is often challenging, and further research is warranted to enhance our understanding of pathological methods. Moreover, there is a need to prioritize the development and exploration of ovarian carcinoma screening and testing methods to prevent delayed disease detection.

The Utility of SOX10 Immunohistochemical Staining in Breast Pathology

OBJECTIVES

SOX10 expression helps identify melanocytic lesions. Over time, novel uses have been identified, such as expression in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). We evaluated the usefulness of SOX10 in breast pathology-specifically, identification and subtyping of TNBC and distinction from gynecologic carcinomas, use as a myoepithelial marker, and in the distinction of usual ductal hyperplasia (UDH) from atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH).

METHODS

Several breast and gynecologic carcinoma tissue microarrays containing a total of 492 cases were stained with SOX10. Whole sections of 34 ADH, 50 UDH, and 29 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) samples were also stained with SOX10.

RESULTS

SOX10 expression was identified in 67% of consecutive TNBC cases. Expression was mostly seen in nonapocrine, androgen receptor (AR)-negative TNBCs. All gynecologic carcinomas (n = 157) were negative. All UDH cases showed mosaic SOX10 expression, while all ADH cases lacked expression. All estrogen receptor (ER)-positive DCIS (n = 19) specimens were negative for SOX10, while 2 of 10 ER-negative DCIS specimens were positive for SOX10. The latter 2 cases showed SOX10-positive invasive carcinomas.

CONCLUSIONS

SOX10 identifies nonluminal AR-type TNBC and is useful in distinguishing TNBC from gynecologic carcinomas. SOX10 can distinguish UDH from ADH. SOX10 is not useful in distinguishing ADH from DCIS.

New Challenges in the Differential Diagnosis of High-Grade Triple-Negative Breast Cancer and Serous Carcinoma

While screening has improved early detection of primary breast cancers, it may also identify metastasis to the breast in rare instances. High-grade carcinomas identified on breast screening may have non-specific morphology and immunoprofiles, making distinction from metastasis problematic. High-grade carcinomas frequently lose expression of specific tumor markers. New evidence specifically challenges GATA3/PAX8 exclusivity in the differential diagnosis of high-grade triple-negative breast cancer and high-grade serous carcinoma of müllerian origin. This case series provides a careful and detailed review of immunohistochemistry interpretation, with focus on PAX8, and the potential pitfalls in making a definitive pathological diagnosis, which is essential in determining oncological treatment options.

Paired-Box Gene 8 (PAX8) and Its Association With Epithelial Carcinomas

Cancer is the second most common culprit of mortality in the United States and epithelial carcinomas are considered as one of the most predominant types of cancer. The association between epithelial cancers and paired-box gene 8 (PAX8) has been studied significantly before. PAX8 belongs to the paired-box gene family, which plays an important role in the organogenesis of different body organ systems, especially the thyroid gland, the renal system, and the Müllerian system. Immunohistochemical staining is being used to detect PAX8 expression in different epithelial cancers and differentiate them from PAX8-negative tumors. In follicular, papillary, and anaplastic thyroid carcinomas, targeting the PAX8/peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) fusion protein is being considered as a potential mechanism for therapy. Moreover, because of its high expression in primary ovarian cancers, PAX8 is being considered as a target for ovarian cancer treatment as well. More studies are needed to test the possibility of using PAX8 as a possible target for managing endometrial carcinomas. In this article, we review the functions of the PAX8 gene, how its mutations lead to the development of certain epithelial carcinomas, how it can be used as a diagnostic or a prognostic marker, and its potential as a therapeutic target for these cancers.

Polyclonal PAX8 expression in carcinomas of the biliary tract - Frequent non-specific staining represents a potential diagnostic pitfall

Paired box protein 8 (PAX8) is a transcription factor that is considered a relatively specific marker of carcinomas of the thyroid, kidney, and Müllerian/Wolffian duct derivatives. Unexpected PAX8 immunoreactivity has occasionally been reported in other tumors. The frequency of PAX8 expression in carcinomas of the biliary tract is not well studied. We evaluated the immunohistochemical expression of PAX8 in 73 cases of biliary tract carcinoma. We found that 28 of 73 (38%) biliary tract carcinomas had variable immunoreactivity for PAX8, assessed by a widely used polyclonal antibody (ProteinTech Group, Chicago, IL). This included 3 (4%) of cases with strong diffuse, and 14 (19%) of cases with strong focal staining. Strong PAX8 expression was more frequent in distal bile duct carcinomas than other biliary sites (p = 0.015), and showed a weak association with advanced T stage (T3-T4 versus T1-T2; p = 0.09). No correlation was observed between PAX8 positivity and age at diagnosis, gender, or lymph node metastasis. The 28 polyclonal PAX8-positive cases were largely negative for monoclonal PAX8 and PAX6 immunostains, with only rare tumor cells with weak immunoreactivity being present in a subset of cases. We show that a substantial fraction of biliary tract carcinomas exhibit immunoreactivity with a widely used polyclonal PAX8 antibody. Pathologists should be aware of this potential pitfall during the diagnostic workup of hepatobiliary lesions to avoid misdiagnosis as a metastasis from a PAX8-positive tumor.

HDAC6 Degradation Inhibits the Growth of High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer Cells

Simple Summary

The objective of this study was, firstly, to investigate the relationship between Histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6) expression and survival in patients with ovarian cancer and, secondly, to test the effects of histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6) inhibition on ovarian cancer cells in vitro. A meta-analysis of the correlation between HDAC6 gene expression and survival was performed on 3573 ovarian tumors from 19 datasets showed that high HDAC6 gene expression was associated with a decreased risk of death. Knockdown of HDAC6 gene expression with small interfering RNA (siRNA) and protein expression with a HDAC6 targeting protein degrader decreased ovarian cell proliferation, migration, and viability. Conversely, the selective inhibition of HDAC6 catalytic activity did not produce a robust inhibition of HDAC6 protein function. In summary, we demonstrated, for the first time, that HDAC6 over-expression in ovarian cancers is a favorable prognostic marker. We provide evidence to suggest that inhibition of HDAC6 catalytic activity has limited efficacy as a monotherapy in ovarian cancers.

Abstract

Histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6) is a unique histone deacetylating enzyme that resides in the cell cytoplasm and is linked to the modulation of several key cancer related responses, including cell proliferation and migration. The promising anti-cancer response of the first-generation HDAC6 catalytic inhibitors continues to be assessed in clinical trials, although its role in high grade serous ovarian cancer is unclear. This study investigated HDAC6 tumor expression by immunohistochemistry in high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) tissue samples and a meta-analysis of HDAC6 gene expression in ovarian cancer from publicly available data. The pharmacological activity of HDAC6 inhibition was assessed in a patient-derived model of HGSOC. HDAC6 was found to be highly expressed in HGSOC tissue samples and in the patient-derived HGSOC cell lines where higher HDAC6 protein and gene expression was associated with a decreased risk of death (hazard ratio (HR) 0.38, (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.16–0.88; p = 0.02); HR = 0.88 (95% CI, 0.78–0.99; p = 0.04)). Similarly, the multivariate analysis of HDAC6 protein expression, adjusting for stage, grade, and cytoreduction/cytoreductive surgery was associated with a decreased risk of death (HR = 0.19 (95% CI, 0.06–0.55); p = 0.002). Knock-down of HDAC6 gene expression with siRNA and protein expression with a HDAC6 targeting protein degrader decreased HGSOC cell proliferation, migration, and viability. Conversely, the selective inhibition of HDAC6 with the catalytic domain inhibitor, Ricolinostat (ACY-1215), inhibited HDAC6 deacetylation of α-tubulin, resulting in a sustained accumulation of acetylated α-tubulin up to 24 h in HGSOC cells, did not produce a robust inhibition of HDAC6 protein function. Inhibition of HGSOC cell proliferation by ACY-1215 was only achieved with significantly higher and non-selective doses of ACY-1215. In summary, we demonstrated, for the first time, that HDAC6 over-expression in HGSOC and all ovarian cancers is a favorable prognostic marker. We provide evidence to suggest that inhibition of HDAC6 catalytic activity with first generation HDAC6 inhibitors has limited efficacy as a monotherapy in HGSOC.

PAX8 Expression in Breast Cancer

PAX8 expression is frequently detected in renal, thyroidal, and Müllerian carcinomas, and PAX8 immunohistochemistry is often used to confirm the origin of these tumors. Tumors metastatic to the breast may masquerade as primary breast lesions. PAX8 is strongly expressed in tumors of Müllerian origin and largely negative in breast primaries, but an immunohistochemical expression of PAX8 in breast cancer has not been systematically evaluated in a large series. We analyzed 266 cases of invasive carcinoma of the breast on tissue microarrays and whole tissue sections with a PAX8 monoclonal antibody. Both the extent (focal or diffuse) and intensity (weak, moderate, or strong) of nuclear staining were assessed in the tumor cells. In total, 16 cases (6.02%) were positive for PAX8 (12 with weak and 4 with moderate staining). Expression was diffuse in 7 cases and focal in 9 cases. All 16 PAX8-positive tumors were histologic grade III invasive ductal carcinomas, 13 of these were triple-negative, 2 were HER2-positive, only and 1 was progesterone receptor-positive only. Strong PAX8 nuclear expression was not seen in any of the cases. PAX8 was negative in breast tumors with neuroendocrine features. Our study demonstrated a low rate of PAX8 expression in breast cancer. When present, PAX8 expression was only seen in high-grade invasive ductal carcinomas, mostly triple-negative. The presence of PAX8 immunoreactivity alone cannot exclude mammary origin, especially when only weak to moderate staining is observed, so the correlation with available clinical and pathologic data helps to ensure an accurate diagnosis.

Histological clues to the diagnosis of metastasis to the breast from extramammary malignancies

AIMS

The aims of this study were to review the histological features useful for the identification of metastases to the breast and to investigate the impression that this diagnosis has become more common.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The histological features of metastases to the breast from 2008 to 2018 were reviewed. Seventy-four biopsies from 66 patients were identified: 1% compared with primary carcinoma of the breast. Non-haematological metastases comprised 0.75% compared with 0.3% in a series from 1996 to 2005. The most common tumour types were pulmonary carcinoma (22), lymphoma (15), melanoma (13), gastrointestinal carcinoma (eight) and serous papillary carcinoma (four). In 73% there were histological features that were not typical of primary mammary carcinoma. Some metastases were histologically similar to breast cancer and the history was essential to making the correct diagnosis. Useful histological clues included small-cell morphology for pulmonary carcinoma, glands containing necrosis for gastrointestinal carcinoma, intranuclear inclusions, marked pleomorphism and spindle cells for melanoma, clear cells for renal carcinoma, papillary architecture for serous papillary carcinoma and sheets of centroblasts or nodules of centroblasts and centrocytes for lymphoma. Useful immunohistochemical markers included TTF-1 for pulmonary carcinoma, S100, melan-A and HMB45 for melanoma, CK20 and CDX2 for colorectal carcinoma, PAX8 and WT1 for serous papillary carcinoma and lymphoid markers for lymphomas, in addition to the absence of expression of mammary markers ER, GATA3 and GCDFP-15.

CONCLUSION

The majority of metastases to the breast have histological clues to the diagnosis. Immunohistochemistry is helpful. This diagnosis is being made more frequently.

Immunohistochemical Analysis of the Expression of Breast Markers in Basal-like Breast Carcinomas Defined as Triple Negative Cancers Expressing Keratin 5

Estrogen and progesterone receptors are possible markers for suggesting a mammary origin of metastatic carcinoma, but are useless in cases of triple negative breast cancers (TNBC). Five other potential markers of breast origin were investigated on tissue microarrays in a series of TNBCs showing keratin 5 expression, consistent with a basal-like phenotype. GATA-3 staining was observed in 82 of 115 triple negative cases (71.3%) including 23 cases with >5% staining. Mammaglobin staining was detected in 30 cases (26.0%) including 12 with >5% staining. GCDFP-15 was seen in 23 cases (20.0%) including 9 with >5% staining. NY-BR-1 positivity was present in 7 cases (6.0%) including 3 patients with >5% staining. BCA-225 staining was observed in 74 cases (64.3%); however this latter marker lacks also specificity owing to the reported widespread staining in other malignancies. GATA-3, mammaglobin and GCDFP-15 coexpression was seen in one case (0.9%), whereas GATA-3 and mammaglobin or mammaglobin and GCDFP-15 coexpression was present in 2 and 2 cases (1.7%), respectively. Using at least 5% staining as cut-off, the expression of any of the last 4 markers was 34.7%. The expression of GATA-3, mammaglobin, GCDFP-15 and NY-BR-1 is lower in TNBC-s than in breast carcinomas in general, and this may be even lower in basal-like carcinomas. Although these markers are not fully specific, by using them, a subset of basal-like TNBC-s can be identified as of mammary origin. However, a substantial proportion will not show any staining with any of these markers.

Preferential expression of NY-BR-1 and GATA-3 in male breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Male breast cancer is an uncommon disease often discovered in advanced stage; thus, in the setting of metastatic adenocarcinoma, breast origin must be taken to account. Breast markers as NY-BR-1, GATA-3, mammaglobin, and BRST-2 are established tools for labelling primary and metastatic female breast cancer; however, none of them has been sufficiently studied in male breast cancer. The aim of this study was to analyze the expression of these markers in male breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty consecutive cases of male breast cancer and eight loco-regional metastases were re-revaluated, assembled in tissue micro array (TMA), and stained with immunohistochemistry (IHC) for NY-BR-1, GATA-3, mammaglobin, and BRST-2. The IHC stains were scored either positive or negative. In addition, concordant expression patterns of primary tumors and matched metastasis were noted.

RESULTS

30 of 30 (100%) primary tumors and 8 of 8 (100%) metastases were positive for NY-BR-1. 30 of 30 (100%) primary tumors and 6 of 8 (75%) metastases were positive for GATA-3. 22 of 30 (73.3%) primary tumors and 6 of 8 (75%) metastases were positive for Mammaglobin. 18 of 30 (60%) primary tumors and 5 of 8 (62.5%) metastases were positive for BRST-2. Differences in staining percentage were not significant with Fisher's exact test.

CONCLUSION

We found a high sensitivity for all the markers analyzed. Moreover, the expression of NY-BR-1 and GATA-3 seemed the most effective for labelling male breast cancer in primary and metastatic setting.

Merkel cell carcinoma, melanoma, metastatic mimics of breast cancer

Merkel cell carcinoma and melanoma can each occur primarily in breast skin, or metastasize to the breast. The breast is a rare site of metastasis of essentially any and every type of tumor, including carcinomas, sarcomas, and hematolymphoid neoplasms, and 10-30% of breast metastases may represent the initial presentation of disease. Although metastases generally recapitulate histologic features of the primary tumor, they are diagnostically challenging given their rarity and morphologic overlap with breast carcinoma, including special types of breast cancer. Histologic clues may include lack of carcinoma in situ, lack of central elastosis, pattern of infiltration around normal breast structures, yet none of these are specific. Careful correlation with clinical history and judicious use of immunostain panels is essential in approaching these cases.

Immunohistochemical profile of breast cancer with respect to estrogen receptor and HER2 status

There are a few studies that have evaluated a panel of stains on a single large data set of breast cancers, which is required for direct comparison between antibodies. The immunohistochemical panel in this study was chosen to include breast-specific markers and markers that are expressed in tumors resembling breast cancer. The individual marker positivity in decreasing order was 95% (177/186) for GATA-3, 92% (172/186) for cytokeratin (CK)7, 80% (151/189) for AR, 80% for estrogen receptor (158/198), 69% for progesterone receptor (137/198), 55% (105/190) for NY-BR-1, 52% (99/189) for mammaglobin, 31% (59/191) for vimentin, 26% (51/195) for GCDFP-15, 0.5% (1/186) for CK20, and 0% (0/188) for PAX-8. When tumors were categorized based on estrogen receptor and HER2 status; a total of 45 profiles were identified. In addition, some tumors showed an unconventional profile-although the majority of breast carcinomas were CK7-positive/CK20-negative, a CK7-negative/CK20-negative profile was seen in ∼8% of the cases. Such a profile can create confusion in investigation of a carcinoma of unknown origin. The results define the individual sensitivity of each marker and establish a baseline diagnostic profile of breast cancer in a large data set. In addition, the results support the use of immunohistochemical panel for confirming or determining breast as the source of metastasis.

The Discovery of Novel Biomarkers Improves Breast Cancer Intrinsic Subtype Prediction and Reconciles the Labels in the METABRIC Data Set

BACKGROUND

The prediction of breast cancer intrinsic subtypes has been introduced as a valuable strategy to determine patient diagnosis and prognosis, and therapy response. The PAM50 method, based on the expression levels of 50 genes, uses a single sample predictor model to assign subtype labels to samples. Intrinsic errors reported within this assay demonstrate the challenge of identifying and understanding the breast cancer groups. In this study, we aim to: a) identify novel biomarkers for subtype individuation by exploring the competence of a newly proposed method named CM1 score, and b) apply an ensemble learning, as opposed to the use of a single classifier, for sample subtype assignment. The overarching objective is to improve class prediction.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The microarray transcriptome data sets used in this study are: the METABRIC breast cancer data recorded for over 2000 patients, and the public integrated source from ROCK database with 1570 samples. We first computed the CM1 score to identify the probes with highly discriminative patterns of expression across samples of each intrinsic subtype. We further assessed the ability of 42 selected probes on assigning correct subtype labels using 24 different classifiers from the Weka software suite. For comparison, the same method was applied on the list of 50 genes from the PAM50 method.

CONCLUSIONS

The CM1 score portrayed 30 novel biomarkers for predicting breast cancer subtypes, with the confirmation of the role of 12 well-established genes. Intrinsic subtypes assigned using the CM1 list and the ensemble of classifiers are more consistent and homogeneous than the original PAM50 labels. The new subtypes show accurate distributions of current clinical markers ER, PR and HER2, and survival curves in the METABRIC and ROCK data sets. Remarkably, the paradoxical attribution of the original labels reinforces the limitations of employing a single sample classifiers to predict breast cancer intrinsic subtypes.

Characterization of twenty-five ovarian tumour cell lines that phenocopy primary tumours

Currently available human tumour cell line panels consist of a small number of lines in each lineage that generally fail to retain the phenotype of the original patient tumour. Here we develop a cell culture medium that enables us to routinely establish cell lines from diverse subtypes of human ovarian cancers with >95% efficiency. Importantly, the 25 new ovarian tumour cell lines described here retain the genomic landscape, histopathology and molecular features of the original tumours. Furthermore, the molecular profile and drug response of these cell lines correlate with distinct groups of primary tumours with different outcomes. Thus, tumour cell lines derived using this methodology represent a significantly improved platform to study human tumour pathophysiology and response to therapy.

Metastatic carcinoma of unknown primary: diagnostic approach using immunohistochemistry

Carcinoma of unknown primary origin (CUP) is one of the 10 most prevalent malignancies. CUP patients in whom a site of origin can be ascribed have better outcomes than those in which the primary tumor remains unidentified. Among the tools available to pathologists in approaching these lesions, immunohistochemistry is a reliable, inexpensive, and widely available resource. New markers continue to emerge, which, in combination with other historically useful antibodies, allow rapid and accurate identification of primary site in an increasing number of cases. This review discusses the approach to the diagnosis of CUP using immunohistochemistry and outlines some of the most useful markers with a particular focus on the utility of lineage-restricted transcription factors, including CDX2, NKX3-1, PAX8, SATB2, TTF-1, and SF1.

Application of immunohistochemistry in breast pathology: a review and update

CONTEXT

Immunohistochemistry is a valuable tool in routine breast pathology, used for both diagnostic and prognostic parameters. The diagnostic immunomarkers are the scope of this review. Most breast lesions can be diagnosed on routine hematoxylin-eosin sections; however, in several scenarios, such as morphologically equivocal cases or metastatic tumors of unknown primary, the appropriate application of immunohistochemistry adds true value in reaching an accurate diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic utility of the most commonly studied immunomarkers in the field of breast pathology by review of the literature, using the database of indexed articles in PubMed (US National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland) from 1976 to 2013.

DATA SOURCES

Literature review, and author's research data and personal practice experience.

CONCLUSIONS

The appropriate use of immunohistochemistry by applying a panel of immunomarkers and using a standardized technical and interpretational method will complement the morphologic assessment and aid in the accurate classification of difficult breast lesions and the identification of metastasis from a breast primary.

Immunohistochemistry in undifferentiated neoplasm/tumor of uncertain origin

CONTEXT

Immunohistochemistry has become an indispensable ancillary study in the identification and classification of undifferentiated neoplasms/tumors of uncertain origin. The diagnostic accuracy has significantly improved because of the continuous discoveries of tissue-specific biomarkers and the development of effective immunohistochemical panels.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and classify undifferentiated neoplasms/tumors of uncertain origin by immunohistochemistry.

DATA SOURCES

Literature review and authors' research data and personal practice experience were used.

CONCLUSIONS

To better guide therapeutic decisions and predict prognostic outcomes, it is crucial to differentiate the specific lineage of an undifferentiated neoplasm. Application of appropriate immunohistochemical panels enables the accurate classification of most undifferentiated neoplasms. Knowing the utilities and pitfalls of each tissue-specific biomarker is essential for avoiding potential diagnostic errors because an absolutely tissue-specific biomarker is exceptionally rare. We review frequently used tissue-specific biomarkers, provide effective panels, and recommend diagnostic algorithms as a standard approach to undifferentiated neoplasms.

Semiquantitative GATA-3 immunoreactivity in breast, bladder, gynecologic tract, and other cytokeratin 7-positive carcinomas

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate GATA-3 immunohistochemical expression semiquantitatively in breast, gynecologic, gastric, pancreatic-biliary tract, urothelial, and vulvar/cervical squamous cell carcinomas.

METHODS

GATA-3 expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry in 198 invasive breast carcinomas on tissue microarrays. Tissue microarrays of other tissues included 144 gynecologic tumors, 28 bladder carcinomas, 63 cholangiocarcinomas, 20 pancreatic carcinomas, and 62 gastric carcinomas. Full tissue sections of 10 invasive squamous cell carcinomas were also stained. GATA-3 expression was semiquantitatively scored using an H-score method. H-score greater than 10 was considered a positive result.

RESULTS

Of 186 breast carcinomas, 95% were positive (mean H-score of 217). GATA-3 expression was uncommon in 139 nonsquamous gynecologic tumors, with often weak reactivity (mean H-score <50) seen in 18% of endocervical, 7% of endometrial, and 10% of ovarian tumors. Six (60%) of 10 squamous cell carcinomas expressed GATA-3 (mean H-score of 102). Of 22 urothelial carcinomas, 95% expressed GATA-3 (mean H-score of 170). A few cholangiocarcinomas (3%), pancreatic adenocarcinomas (10%), and gastric carcinomas (2%) weakly expressed GATA-3 (mean H-score <50).

CONCLUSIONS

Strong GATA-3 expression is a reliable marker of primary breast carcinoma in the appropriate clinical context. GATA-3 reactivity in around 70% of triple-negative breast carcinomas is also clinically useful. Significant reactivity in gynecologic squamous cell carcinomas suggests that GATA-3 alone cannot reliably distinguish these tumors from urothelial carcinoma.

Immunohistochemical evaluation of GATA-3 expression in ER-negative breast carcinomas

OBJECTIVES

Estrogen receptor (ER), gross cystic disease fluid protein 15 (GCDFP-15), and mammaglobin (MGB) are commonly used breast-specific immunomarkers; however, about half of metastatic breast carcinomas are negative for all three. GATA-binding protein 3 (GATA-3) has emerged recently as a sensitive and relatively specific immunomarker for breast and urothelial carcinomas, but the data documenting its expression in ER-negative breast carcinomas are limited; this often poses a dilemma in the setting of metastases. The purpose of this study is to investigate expression of GATA-3 in ER-negative breast carcinomas.

METHODS

Immunohistochemical evaluation of GATA-3, GCDFP-15, and MGB on 96 ER-negative breast carcinomas was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 69% (66/96), 15% (14/96), and 35% (34/96) of ER-negative breast carcinomas expressed GATA-3, GCDFP-15, and MGB, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that GATA-3 is, so far, the best breast-specific immunomarker, especially when encountering ER-negative metastatic breast carcinomas. GATA-3 should be included in the panel of immunomarkers in the workup of tumors of unknown primary.

Primary adenocarcinoma of the urinary bladder: differential diagnosis and clinical relevance

CONTEXT

Glandular lesions of the urinary bladder include a broad spectrum of entities ranging from completely benign glandular lesions to primary and secondary malignancies. Common benign bladder lesions that exhibit glandular differentiation include cystitis cystica, cystitis glandularis, von Brunn nests, nephrogenic adenoma, intestinal metaplasia, urachal remnant, endometriosis, and prostatic-type polyp. The World Health Organization defines primary adenocarcinoma of the bladder as an epithelial malignancy with pure glandular differentiation without evidence of typical urothelial carcinoma. Malignant lesions that should be included in the differential diagnosis of a primary adenocarcinoma of the bladder include noninvasive and invasive urothelial carcinoma with glandular differentiation and secondary malignancies involving the bladder by direct extension or metastasis. The recognition and distinction of these different entities may be a challenge for pathologists, but they are of great clinical importance.

OBJECTIVE

To review features of primary bladder adenocarcinoma as well as those entities that need to be differentiated from primary bladder adenocarcinoma, with emphasis on clinical findings, pathologic characteristics, and immunoprofiles.

DATA SOURCES

Selected original articles published in the PubMed service of the US National Library of Medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

The accurate diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the urinary bladder is important and challenging. It has to prompt an extensive clinical workup to rule out other glandular lesions in the urinary bladder, especially the possibility of secondary involvement of the bladder by an adenocarcinoma from a different site.