Suppr超能文献

乳腺肌上皮细胞中血小板内皮细胞黏附分子染色减弱:淋巴血管浸润诊断中的一个潜在注意事项。

Attenuated podoplanin staining in breast myoepithelial cells: a potential caveat in the diagnosis of lymphatic invasion.

作者信息

Yang Zhaohai, Adams Amy L, Hameed Omar

机构信息

Department of Pathology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL 35294-6823, USA.

出版信息

Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2009 Oct;17(5):425-30. doi: 10.1097/PAI.0b013e31819d2281.

Abstract

Although podoplanin expression in breast myoepithelial (ME) cells has been reported to be readily distinguishable from that of lymphatic endothelium (LE), we recently encountered a case in which attenuated expression led to an incorrect interpretation of lymphatic invasion. This prompted us to further analyze the pattern and intensity of podoplanin expression in LE and in ME cells surrounding both non-neoplastic and neoplastic breast epithelium in 42 cases of breast carcinoma. In addition, cases with presumed lymphatic invasion (tumor cells within podoplanin-positive lymphatic-like structures) were further characterized on the basis of histologic review and results of additional endothelial (CD31 and/or CD34) and ME (p63+/-calponin) immunostains. Normal LE always displayed a strong (3+) linear podoplanin expression pattern, whereas ME cells surrounding non-neoplastic breast epithelium had a granular, branching membranous staining pattern that was either moderate (2+) or strong (3+) in 13 (34%) and 25 (66%) foci, respectively. ME cells surrounding ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) displayed weaker (1+ to 2+) podoplanin expression with 26 (72%) foci showing only a residual thin/discontinuous pattern of expression, whereas the other 10 (28%) foci showed a pattern similar to that around non-neoplastic epithelium. Further evaluation of 10 foci of presumed lymphatic invasion confirmed the presence of lymphatic invasion in 6 (60%) cases, whereas 4 displayed surrounding ME cells and were thus interpreted as DCIS. One case, in which both DCIS and lymphatic invasion were unequivocally present, displayed a few nests of tumor cells surrounded by both podoplanin-positive and p63-positive cells in different areas of the periphery and could not be readily classified. These findings represent an important caveat in the diagnosis of lymphatic invasion and, accordingly, one should always interpret results of podoplanin staining in the context of the histologic appearance and/or consider evaluation of additional endothelial or ME immunostains, especially when the characteristically strong linear pattern of expression of LE is not evident.

摘要

尽管已有报道称乳腺肌上皮(ME)细胞中的血小板内皮细胞黏附分子-1(podoplanin)表达与淋巴管内皮(LE)细胞的表达易于区分,但我们最近遇到了一例因podoplanin表达减弱导致淋巴管侵犯错误判读的病例。这促使我们进一步分析42例乳腺癌中LE细胞以及非肿瘤性和肿瘤性乳腺上皮周围ME细胞中podoplanin的表达模式和强度。此外,根据组织学检查以及额外的内皮细胞(CD31和/或CD34)和ME细胞(p63+/-钙调蛋白)免疫染色结果,对疑似淋巴管侵犯的病例(podoplanin阳性淋巴管样结构内的肿瘤细胞)进行了进一步特征分析。正常LE细胞总是呈现强(3+)线性podoplanin表达模式,而非肿瘤性乳腺上皮周围的ME细胞呈颗粒状、分支状膜染色模式,分别有13个(34%)病灶呈中度(2+)染色、25个(66%)病灶呈强(3+)染色。原位导管癌(DCIS)周围的ME细胞podoplanin表达较弱(1+至2+),26个(72%)病灶仅显示残留的薄/不连续表达模式,而其他10个(28%)病灶的表达模式与非肿瘤上皮周围的相似。对10个疑似淋巴管侵犯病灶的进一步评估证实,6例(60%)存在淋巴管侵犯,而4例显示周围有ME细胞,因此被解释为DCIS。有1例同时明确存在DCIS和淋巴管侵犯,在外周不同区域有一些被podoplanin阳性和p63阳性细胞包围的肿瘤细胞巢,难以轻易分类。这些发现对淋巴管侵犯的诊断具有重要警示意义,因此,在诊断时应始终结合组织学表现解读podoplanin染色结果,和/或考虑评估额外的内皮细胞或ME细胞免疫染色,尤其是当LE细胞特征性的强线性表达模式不明显时。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验