Alici Omer, Kefeli Mehmet, Yildiz Levent, Baris Sancar, Karagoz Filiz, Kandemir Bedri
Department of Pathology, Samsun Training and Research Hospital, Turkey; Department of Pathology, 19 Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey.
Department of Pathology, 19 Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey.
Pathol Res Pract. 2014 Dec;210(12):934-8. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2014.07.003. Epub 2014 Jul 22.
The aim of this study was to compare the expressions of fascin and EMMPRIN in primary malignant, borderline and benign mucinous ovarian tumors, and to investigate the relationship of these markers with tumor progression and their applicability to differential diagnosis.
An immunohistochemical study was performed for fascin and EMMPRIN using the tissue microarray technique. Eighty-one cases were included in the study; there were 37 benign, 25 borderline and 19 malignant primary mucinous ovarian tumors. For each case, a total staining score was determined, consisting of scores for extent of staining and intensity of staining. The cases were allocated to negative, weakly positive and strongly positive staining categories, according to the total staining score.
Both of the markers were significantly negative in benign tumors as compared with borderline and malignant tumors. There was no significant difference between borderline and malignant groups for both markers. Sixty-eight percent of malignant tumors were stained positive by fascin, while this rate was 40% for borderline mucinous tumors. All malignant tumors were strongly stained positive for EMMPRIN, while this rate was 92% for borderline mucinous tumors. The rest of the cases stained weakly positive. No significant difference in staining score was found between fascin and EMMPRIN expression.
In ovarian primary mucinous tumors, fascin and EMMPRIN may play an important role in tumor progression from benign tumor to carcinoma. In that context, EMMPRIN and fascin expression may have potential application in the differential diagnosis of some diagnostically problematic mucinous ovarian tumors. However, the differential diagnostic applicability of EMMPRIN appears to be more limited than that of fascin due to its wide spectrum of staining in mucinous ovarian tumors.
本研究旨在比较fascin和EMMPRIN在原发性恶性、交界性和良性黏液性卵巢肿瘤中的表达情况,并探讨这些标志物与肿瘤进展的关系及其在鉴别诊断中的适用性。
采用组织芯片技术对fascin和EMMPRIN进行免疫组织化学研究。本研究共纳入81例病例,其中包括37例良性、25例交界性和19例原发性恶性黏液性卵巢肿瘤。对于每例病例,确定一个总染色评分,包括染色范围评分和染色强度评分。根据总染色评分,将病例分为阴性、弱阳性和强阳性染色类别。
与交界性和恶性肿瘤相比,这两种标志物在良性肿瘤中均显著为阴性。两种标志物在交界性和恶性组之间无显著差异。68%的恶性肿瘤fascin染色呈阳性,而交界性黏液性肿瘤的这一比例为40%。所有恶性肿瘤EMMPRIN均强阳性染色,而交界性黏液性肿瘤的这一比例为92%。其余病例染色呈弱阳性。fascin和EMMPRIN表达的染色评分无显著差异。
在卵巢原发性黏液性肿瘤中,fascin和EMMPRIN可能在肿瘤从良性肿瘤向癌的进展中起重要作用。在这种情况下,EMMPRIN和fascin表达可能在一些诊断有问题的黏液性卵巢肿瘤的鉴别诊断中具有潜在应用价值。然而,由于EMMPRIN在黏液性卵巢肿瘤中的染色谱较宽,其在鉴别诊断中的适用性似乎比fascin更有限。