Evaluation of the expression of Bmi-1 stem cell marker in sinonasal melanomas and its correlation with the expression of cell cycle proteins

Background

Sinonasal melanomas (SNM) are aggressive neoplasms, which present distinct clinicopathological and molecular aspects when compared to cutaneous melanomas (CM). B-cell-specific moloney murine leukemia virus integration site-1 (Bmi-1) is a stem cell marker involved in the regulation of the cell cycle and has been found to be expressed in 70% of CM and 100% of benign nevi. Regarding the cell cycle, Bmi-1 is known to be an upstream repressor of p16, which is a tumor suppressor encoded by the INK4a/Arf locus. Considering this, the aim of this study is to evaluate the immunohistochemical expression of Bmi-1 in a series of SNM and its correlation with the expression of cell cycle proteins (p16 and Ki-67, a nuclear antigen of proliferating cells).

Methods

In 16 cases of SNM, nuclear expression of Bmi-1 and nuclear and cytoplasmic of p16 was classified as: absent, low (> 5 to < 50% of cells) and high (≥50%). Ki-67 proliferation index was represented by the ratio positive cells/ total cells.

Results

Histologically, all cases presented varying amount of necrosis and 75% contained undifferentiated cells. Bmi-1 was detected in 6 cases (37.5%) with high level of expression in 2; p16 expression was seen in 10 cases (62.5%) with high level in 7. The frequency of p16 expression did not differ significantly between tumors with or without Bmi-1 expression. Ki-67 index ranged from 8 to 22%. Neither Bmi-1 nor p16 expression showed correlation with Ki-67 index. Bmi-1 negative tumors presented more extensive necrosis (71.4%); no association between Bmi-1 expression and undifferentiated phenotype was observed.

Conclusions

In our SNM series, low immunohistochemical expression of Bmi-1 was a common phenomenon favoring the hypothesis that mucosal melanoma possibly presents molecular pathways different from the cutaneous counterpart. In SNM, Bmi-1 and p16 expression levels did not correlate with each other or with the cell proliferative index.

Loss of expression of Plag1 in malignant transformation from pleomorphic adenoma to carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma

PLAG1 (pleomorphic adenoma gene 1) is frequently activated in pleomorphic adenoma (PA). Carcinoma ex pleomorphic adenoma (CXPA) arises in PA, and PLAG1 expression is believed to be maintained from PA to CXPA, as it can contribute to the carcinogenesis process. To evaluate if PLAG1 is a good marker of malignant transformation from PA to CXPA as well as to evaluate if PLAG1 expression is associated with progression and histopathologic subtype of CXPA. Forty PAs, 21 residual PAs (without malignant transformation), and 40 CXPAs were analyzed by immunohistochemistry with PLAG1 antibody. The proportion of positive neoplastic cells was assessed according to a 2-tiered scale: >10% to 50%, and >50% positive cells. The CXPA group was classified according to histopathologic subtype and invasiveness degree. Thirty-seven PAs (92.5%), 15 residual PAs (71%), and 14 CXPAs (35%) were positive for PLAG1. In relation to the CXPA group, among the intracapsular cases, myoepithelial carcinoma and epithelial-myoepithelial carcinoma showed the highest level of PLAG1 expression. PLAG1 expression is lost when PA undergoes malignant transformation, possibly due to other pathway activation and different clone cells. In addition, PLAG1 expression seems to be present mainly in low-grade carcinomas and in cases with early phase of invasion, due to its regulation of oncogene-induced cell senescence. In CXPA, PLAG1 expression was most associated with myoepithelial differentiation. This way, loss of PLAG1 expression can be considered a hallmark of CXPA carcinogenesis, mainly when there is only epithelial differentiation.

Immunohistochemical expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in oral nevi and melanoma

BACKGROUND

Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) catalyses the conversion of arachidonic acid to prostaglandin, and its overexpression has been demonstrated in different malignant tumors, including cutaneous melanoma. However, no data about the expression of this protein in oral melanocytic lesions are available to date. The aim of this study was to evaluate the immunohistochemical expression of COX-2 in oral nevi and melanomas, comparing the results with correspondent cutaneous lesions.

METHODS

COX-2 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry in 49 oral melanocytic lesions, including 36 intramucosal nevi and 13 primary oral melanomas, and in four cutaneous nevi and eight melanomas.

RESULTS

All cases of oral and cutaneous melanomas were positive for COX-2. On the other hand, all oral and cutaneous melanocytic nevi were negative.

CONCLUSION

COX-2 is highly positive in oral melanomas and negative in oral nevi and might represent a useful marker to distinguish melanocytic lesions of the oral cavity.

Lysozyme Expression Can be Useful to Distinguish Mammary Analog Secretory Carcinoma from Acinic Cell Carcinoma of Salivary Glands

Lysozyme is an enzymatic marker of acinar and intercalated duct cells of normal salivary glands. The aim of this study was to verify whether lysozyme expression could be useful to distinguish acinic cell carcinoma (ACC) from its main mimic, mammary analog secretory carcinoma (MASC). For comparison, DOG1 expression was analyzed as well. Seventeen cases of ACC, 15 MASC, and 125 other salivary tumors were studied. Lysozyme expression was found in tumor cells as well as in secreted material of MASC (86.6 % of cases) and in ductal cells of epithelial-myoepithelial carcinoma (EMC-53.8 %), pleomorphic adenoma (PA-29.1 %) and polymorphous low-grade adenocarcinoma (PLGA-23.8 %). However, in ACC, lysozyme was not expressed. Three patterns of DOG1 staining were seen: apical-luminal, cytoplasmic, and mixed cytoplasmic/membranous. The apical-luminal pattern was detected in ductal cells of ACC (58.8 % of cases), EMC (38.4 %), adenoid-cystic carcinoma (AdCC-35.3 %), PA (8.3 %), and PLGA (4.8 %). These tumors also showed mixed membranous/cytoplasmic staining for DOG1. MASC, mucoepidermoid, and salivary duct carcinomas exhibited only DOG1 cytoplasmic staining. In conclusion, lysozyme cannot be used as a marker of acinar differentiation in salivary tumors. However, lysozyme expression can be helpful to distinguish MASC from ACC due to its high frequency in the former and absence in ACC. It is likely that in MASC, lysozyme expression may reflect a lactational-like secretory differentiation since lysozyme belongs to breast milk proteins. Regarding DOG1 expression, the apical-luminal pattern is related to acinar and intercalated duct differentiation whereas the cytoplasmic staining does not seem to be associated with a specific cellular phenotype.