Pavlakis K, Zoubouli Chr, Liakakos Th, Messini I, Keramopoullos A, Athanassiadou S, Kafousi M, Stathopoulos E N
Pathology Department, ATTIKON Hospital, Athens University Medical School, Kyprou 9, Kifissia, 14562 Athens, Greece.
Breast. 2006 Dec;15(6):705-12. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2005.11.005. Epub 2005 Dec 27.
Sclerosing breast lesions may sometimes mimic the appearance of infiltrating carcinoma due to the entrapment of ductular structures in a fibrotic core. The immunohistochemical detection of the outer myoepithelial cell layer that is indicative of a non-infiltrating lesion is a valuable clue for the diagnosis of such ambiguous cases. The myoepithelial cell markers smooth muscle actin (SMA) and p63 are most commonly used since their specificity and sensitivity are well established. However, recent studies have indicated that some morphologically distinct myoepithelial cells fail to stain for SMA and that p63 positivity can be rarely expressed by a subset of malignant epithelial cells. Moreover, SMA can also be positive in stromal myofibroblastic cells and normal vessels that can be found close to the entrapped ductules and might be erroneously interpreted as myoepithelial cells. In this study, we used a double-immunolabeling technique combining both SMA and p63 antibodies (myoepithelial cell cocktail), in order to investigate whether this technique is advantageous over either marker used alone, in diagnosing sclerosing breast lesions. Our results indicate that p63 alone is not a useful myoepithelial cell marker if applied in large sclerosing breast lesions, however, in smaller lesions it is still of high value. On the contrary, SMA proved significantly useful in the evaluation of myoepithelial cells in larger but not in smaller complex sclerosing lesions. The myoepithelial cell cocktail has a staining sensitivity identical to that of SMA. Nevertheless, in a certain number of cases the cocktail might be useful in differentiating myoepithelial cells from stromal myofibroblasts or vascular smooth muscle cells due to the false impression of a higher staining intensity of the cocktail resulting from the expression of both nuclear and cytoplasmic/membranous antibodies that occupy a wider area of the cell under control.
硬化性乳腺病变有时可能因纤维核心中导管结构的包埋而模仿浸润性癌的外观。免疫组化检测外层肌上皮细胞层可提示非浸润性病变,这是诊断此类疑难病例的重要线索。肌上皮细胞标志物平滑肌肌动蛋白(SMA)和p63是最常用的,因为它们的特异性和敏感性已得到充分证实。然而,最近的研究表明,一些形态学上不同的肌上皮细胞不能被SMA染色,并且一小部分恶性上皮细胞很少表达p63阳性。此外,SMA在间质肌成纤维细胞和正常血管中也可能呈阳性,这些细胞可在包埋的小导管附近发现,可能会被错误地解释为肌上皮细胞。在本研究中,我们使用了结合SMA和p63抗体的双重免疫标记技术(肌上皮细胞混合抗体),以研究该技术在诊断硬化性乳腺病变方面是否比单独使用任何一种标志物更具优势。我们的结果表明,单独使用p63在大的硬化性乳腺病变中不是一个有用的肌上皮细胞标志物,然而,在较小的病变中它仍然具有很高的价值。相反,SMA在评估较大但不是较小的复杂性硬化性病变中的肌上皮细胞时被证明非常有用。肌上皮细胞混合抗体的染色敏感性与SMA相同。然而,在一定数量的病例中,混合抗体可能有助于将肌上皮细胞与间质肌成纤维细胞或血管平滑肌细胞区分开来,这是由于核抗体和细胞质/膜抗体的表达导致混合抗体染色强度更高的错觉,这些抗体占据了受检细胞更广泛的区域。