Differential immunoprofiles of hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, and adrenocortical carcinoma: a systemic immunohistochemical survey using tissue array technique.

Department of Pathology, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan.
Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology: AIMM / official publication of the Society for Applied Immunohistochemistry (Impact Factor: 2.06). 01/2006; 13(4):347-52. DOI: 10.1097/01.pai.0000146525.72531.19
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The differential diagnoses of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) are sometimes difficult due to their overlapping histologic features. Immunohistochemistry is a helpful adjunct in supporting the histologic diagnosis. In this study, the authors used the tissue array technique to systemically analyze the efficacy of different immunohistochemical panels in discerning these neoplasms. Immunohistochemical stains were performed on a total of 895 tumors (including 170 HCCs, 176 RCCs, and 40 ACCs) using monoclonal antibodies against hepatocyte antigen (HPA), CD10, RCC marker, vimentin, alpha-inhibin, keratins (KL-1, CAM 5.2, 7, and 20), epithelial membrane antigen, and polyclonal antibodies against carcinoembryonic antigen (pCEA) and alpha-fetoprotein, and antibodies Melan-A (A103), MOC31, and BG8. HPA immunostain alone detected 85.9% of HCCs, and the addition of canalicular pattern of pCEA and CD10 immunostains raised the sensitivity to 94.7%. RCC marker was positive in 54.5% of RCCs but was negative in all non-RCC tumors. Using positive CD10 and negative HPA and pCEA together with RCC marker increased the sensitivity to 74.4%. Immunoreactivity for alpha-inhibin and A103 could be detected in 67.5% and 55% of ACCs, respectively. When the two antibodies were combined, 82.5% of ACCs were labeled. Proper selection of immunohistochemical stains aid in the differential diagnosis of the three neoplasms. Using the tissue array technique, the authors also showed an effective model for comprehensive antibody testing.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) is a rare, but highly aggressive type of tumor with an incidence of one to two per million annually. Adrenocortical carcinosarcoma is an exceptional variant of ACC, which is characterized by the presence of histological regions of carcinoma and sarcoma. To date, to the best of our knowledge, there have only been 12 reported cases of adrenocortical carcinosarcoma. In the present study, a case of primary, non-functional adrenocortical carcinosarcoma is described, as well as a review of the literature to raise awareness of this particularly rare type of malignant neoplasm that is associated with a worse diagnosis and prognosis than adrenocortical carcinoma. In the present study, the patient underwent a laparoscopic left adrenalectomy and the tumor was dissected without complication from the left kidney. Microscopic observations showed the tumor comprised of epithelial and spindle cell components. The patient did not exhibit signs of tumor recurrence at the one-month follow-up. The potential diagnosis of adrenocortical carcinosarcoma must be considered when diagnosing adrenal malignancies in adults. In addition, comphrensive imunohistochemical staining may be required to identify possible sarcomatous patterns. To the best of our knowledge, the present case is the first to report an incidence of adrenocortical carcinosarcoma in China. Details of the patient are presented and the pathology of adrenocortical carcinosarcoma is discussed.
    Oncology letters 01/2015; 9(1):153-158. DOI:10.3892/ol.2014.2635 · 0.99 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most adrenocortical tumors are benign; adrenocortical carcinomas are rare but their prognosis is poor and their therapeutic is sparse. In most adrenocortical tumors, the morphological approach brings sufficient elements to establish the differential diagnosis between a benign and a malignant tumor but in few cases, it is insufficient. Moreover, morphology is limited for predicting prognosis of adrenocortical carcinomas. These observations led to development of other approaches, in particular genetic approaches. These genetics findings already have repercussions for the patients in the development of molecular markers for diagnosis and prognosis and in the future they could help in the development of new morphological approaches, in particular immunohistochemical appoaches.
    Annales d Endocrinologie 06/2009; 70(3):179-185. DOI:10.1016/j.ando.2009.02.014 · 0.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The International Society of Urological Pathology convened a consensus conference on renal cancer, preceded by an online survey, to address issues relating to the diagnosis and reporting of renal neoplasia. In this report, the role of bio-markers in the diagnosis and assessment of prognosis of renal tumors is addressed. In particular we focused upon the use of immunohistochemical markers and the approach to specific differential diagnostic scenarios. We enquired whether cyto-genetic and molecular tools were applied in practice and asked for views on the perceived prognostic role of biomarkers. Both the survey and conference voting results demonstrated a high degree of consensus in participants' responses regarding prog-nostic/predictive markers and molecular techniques, whereas it was apparent that biomarkers for these purposes remained outside the diagnostic realm pending clinical validation. Al-though no individual antibody or panel of antibodies reached consensus for classifying renal tumors, or for confirming renal metastatic disease, it was noted from the online survey that 87% of respondents used immunohistochemistry to subtype renal tumors sometimes or occasionally, and a majority (87%) used immunohistochemical markers (Pax 2 or Pax 8, renal cell car-cinoma [RCC] marker, panel of pan-CK, CK7, vimentin, and CD10) in confirming the diagnosis of metastatic RCC. There was consensus that immunohistochemistry should be used for histologic subtyping and applied before reaching a diagnosis of unclassified RCC. At the conference, there was consensus that TFE3 and TFEB analysis ought to be requested when RCC was diagnosed in a young patient or when histologic appearances were suggestive of the translocation subtype; whereas Pax 2 and/ or Pax 8 were considered to be the most useful markers in the diagnosis of a renal primary.
    American Journal of Surgical Pathology 10/2013; DOI:10.1097/PAS.0b013e318299f12e. · 4.59 Impact Factor