Expression of WT1, CA 125, and GCDFP-15 as Useful Markers in the Differential Diagnosis of Primary Ovarian Carcinomas Versus Metastatic Breast Cancer to the Ovary
Metastatic breast carcinoma to the ovary is sometimes difficult to differentiate from primary ovarian carcinoma. This problem is often encountered in breast carcinoma patients who develop adnexal masses. ER and PR can be positive in a high percentage of breast and ovarian carcinomas, and therefore cannot be used in the differential diagnosis of these entities. WT1 and CA125 have been identified as possible markers for ovarian cancer. However, no studies have been done that specifically compare the immunophenotype of breast carcinoma metastatic to ovary with that of primary ovarian cancer. Thirty-nine cases of metastatic breast carcinoma to the ovary, 36 primary breast carcinomas, and 42 primary ovarian carcinomas were examined immunohistochemically for the expression of WT1, CA125, carcinoembryonic antigen, MUC2, MUC1, and GCDFP. The percentage of cells stained and the intensity of staining were recorded. Thirty-two ovarian carcinomas (76%) were positive for WT1, including 31 of 33 (94%) serous carcinomas. Most of them had strong and diffuse staining. None of the breast cancers either primary or metastatic to the ovary expressed WT1. Thirty-eight (90%) ovarian carcinomas were positive for CA125, most of them with strong and diffuse staining. Most breast carcinomas were negative for CA125, with only 6 (16%) of the primary ones and 5 (12%) of the metastatic showing weak and focal positivity. All ovarian carcinomas were negative for GCDFP. Five primary breast cancers (14%) and 17 (43%) metastatic to the ovary were positive for GCDFP. Nine (21%) ovarian carcinomas, 8 (22%) primary breast carcinomas, and 13 (33%) metastatic to the ovary were positive for carcinoembryonic antigen. Almost all tumors examined were positive for MUC1 (100% ovarian carcinomas, 100% primary breast carcinomas, and 95% metastatic breast carcinomas to ovary). MUC2 was positive in 10 (24%) ovarian carcinomas, 3 (8%) primary breast cancers, and 12 (30%) metastases to the ovary. The presence of immunoreactivity for WT1 and CA125 in a carcinoma involving ovary strongly favors a primary lesion. Most ovarian carcinomas are positive for both markers, whereas the majority of metastatic breast carcinomas to the ovary are negative. GCDFP can be complementary in this differential diagnosis.
Available from: sciencedirect.com
- "WT1 and PAX8 appear to have the greatest utility in differentiating primary BC from metastatic OC due to their high sensitivity and low potential for aberrant expression. WT1 is detected in 94.7% of serous OC, 100% peritoneal serous carcinomas, and 2–3% IMPC, thereby limiting its utility here (Tornos and Solslow, 2005). PAX8, a transcription factor expressed in tumors of renal, mullerian and thyroid origin, is present in 99% of serous OC and absent in all BC including IMPC (Nonaka et al., 2008; Lotan et al., 2009). "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
► The breast as a site of metastasis from primary ovarian carcinoma is uncommon. ► Distinguishing these metastases from primary breast tumors is important because the prognosis and therapeutic approach differ significantly. ► Immunohistochemical markers (e.g., PAX8) can be utilized when morphology and clinical history are insufficient to render the correct diagnosis.
Available from: Cherry Yin-Yi Chang
- "Unlike the less consistent expression patterns of MUC1, MUC6 and MUC5AC in normal and cancer tissues, MUC2 levels were always measured low in normal endometrial and cervical tissue, and elevated MUC2 expressions were specifically found in various neoplastic lesions [28,29,43-45]. However, expression patterns of MUC2 in ovarian tumor were heterogenic . Boman et al. reported that MUC2 were mainly present in benign and borderline ovarian tumor , while Dong et al. showed that breast cancer patients with presence of MUC2 expression had shorter disease-free survival . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Mucins are highly glycosylated proteins protecting and lubricating epithelial surface of respiratory, gastrointestinal and reproductive tracts. Members of the mucin protein family have been suggested to play an important role in development of endometriosis and infertility. This study investigates genetic association of mucin2 (MUC2) with the risk of endometriosis and endometriosis-related infertility.
This case-control study was conducted at China Medical University Hospital, with 195 endometriosis patients and 196 healthy controls enrolled. Genotyping of six SNPs (rs2856111, rs11245936, rs10794288, rs10902088, rs7103978 and rs11245954) within MUC2 gene were performed by using Taqman genotyping assay; individual SNP and haplotype associations with endometriosis and endometriosis-related infertility were assessed by χ² test.
Endometriosis patients exhibit significantly lower frequency of the rs10794288 C allele, the rs10902088 T allele and the rs7103978 G allele (P = 0.030, 0.013 and 0.040, respectively). In addition, the rs10794288 C allele and the rs10902088 T allele were also less abundant in patients with infertility versus fertile ones (P = 0.015 and 0.024, respectively). Haplotype analysis of the endometriosis associated SNPs in MUC2 also showed significantly association between the most common haplotypes and endometriosis or endometriosis-related infertility.
MUC2 polymorphisms, especially rs10794288 and rs10902088, are associated with endometriosis as well as endometriosis-related infertility. Our data present MUC2 as a new candidate involved in development of endometriosis and related infertility in Taiwanese Han women.
Available from: David Gentien
- "Several approaches have been developed to discriminate between primary and secondary ovarian cancers. Among them, immunohistochemistry (IHC) has evaluated diagnostic markers, presumably able to support the diagnosis, such as PAX8, a transcription factor for organogenesis of Müllerian system, or Wilms tumor suppressor gene (WT1) whose expression is regulated by PAX8 [11,12]. However, only limited series, without validation data, have been reported so far. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The distinction between primary and secondary ovarian tumors may be challenging for pathologists. The purpose of the present work was to develop genomic and transcriptomic tools to further refine the pathological diagnosis of ovarian tumors after a previous history of breast cancer.
Sixteen paired breast-ovary tumors from patients with a former diagnosis of breast cancer were collected. The genomic profiles of paired tumors were analyzed using the Affymetrix GeneChip Mapping 50 K Xba Array or Genome-Wide Human SNP Array 6.0 (for one pair), and the data were normalized with ITALICS (ITerative and Alternative normaLIzation and Copy number calling for affymetrix Snp arrays) algorithm or Partek Genomic Suite, respectively. The transcriptome of paired samples was analyzed using Affymetrix GeneChip Human Genome U133 Plus 2.0 Arrays, and the data were normalized with gc-Robust Multi-array Average (gcRMA) algorithm. A hierarchical clustering of these samples was performed, combined with a dataset of well-identified primary and secondary ovarian tumors.
In 12 of the 16 paired tumors analyzed, the comparison of genomic profiles confirmed the pathological diagnosis of primary ovarian tumor (n = 5) or metastasis of breast cancer (n = 7). Among four cases with uncertain pathological diagnosis, genomic profiles were clearly distinct between the ovarian and breast tumors in two pairs, thus indicating primary ovarian carcinomas, and showed common patterns in the two others, indicating metastases from breast cancer. In all pairs, the result of the transcriptomic analysis was concordant with that of the genomic analysis.
In patients with ovarian carcinoma and a previous history of breast cancer, SNP array analysis can be used to distinguish primary and secondary ovarian tumors. Transcriptomic analysis may be used when primary breast tissue specimen is not available.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.