• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Triple marker composed of p16, CD56, and TTF1 shows higher sensitivity than INSM1 for diagnosis of pulmonary small cell carcinoma: proposal for a rational immunohistochemical algorithm for diagnosis of small cell carcinoma in small biopsy and cytology specimens

M. Švajdler, R. Mezencev, B. Šašková, O. Ondič, P. Mukenšnábl, M. Michal,

. 2019 ; 85 (-) : 58-64. [pub] 20181030

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc19045160

Pulmonary small cell carcinoma (SCLC) can be usually diagnosed based on the morphological evaluation of routine histological or cytological preparations. However, immunohistochemistry may be also necessary in problematic cases. Insulinoma-associated 1 (INSM1) has recently been reported as a highly sensitive and specific marker that displays positivity in ~90%-100% of poorly differentiated pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors. We compared diagnostic performance of INSM1 and previously reported composite marker CD56 + p16 + thyroid transcription factor-1 (TTF1) in the diagnosis of SCLC in small biopsy specimens and cytoblocks. The composite marker CD56 + p16 + TTF1 correctly classified 100% of SCLC cases, and its sensitivity was significantly higher than the sensitivity of INSM1. Among 100 SCLC cases, CD56, TTF1, and p16 each individually classified more specimens correctly than INSM1 (CD56: 84%, TTF1: 89%, p16: 95%, INSM1: 81%); the difference was statistically significant only for p16. INSM1 showed the lowest classification agreement between paired biopsy and cytoblock specimens (κ = 0.182), whereas CD56 and p16 displayed perfect agreement (κ = 1) and TTF1 showed moderate agreement (κ = 0.4). Although INSM1 is reportedly the most specific marker of SCLC, its sensitivity is not superior to p16 or composite marker CD56 + TTF1 + p16. Based on this study, we propose the following algorithm, which, in the appropriate clinical and histological context, may be useful in establishing the correct diagnosis of SCLC: First, INSM1 detection is performed, and if the result is negative, CD56 is added, followed successively by p16 and TTF1 if all previously applied markers are negative. This approach should detect most, if not all, SCLC cases, while successively trading specificity for sensitivity.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc19045160
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20200113081817.0
007      
ta
008      
200109s2019 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.10.016 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)30385371
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Švajdler, Marián $u Šikl's Department of Pathology, Charles University in Prague, The Faculty of Medicine and Faculty Hospital in Pilsen, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic; Bioptická laboratoř s.r.o., 326 00 Pilsen, Czech Republic. Electronic address: svajdler@yahoo.com.
245    10
$a Triple marker composed of p16, CD56, and TTF1 shows higher sensitivity than INSM1 for diagnosis of pulmonary small cell carcinoma: proposal for a rational immunohistochemical algorithm for diagnosis of small cell carcinoma in small biopsy and cytology specimens / $c M. Švajdler, R. Mezencev, B. Šašková, O. Ondič, P. Mukenšnábl, M. Michal,
520    9_
$a Pulmonary small cell carcinoma (SCLC) can be usually diagnosed based on the morphological evaluation of routine histological or cytological preparations. However, immunohistochemistry may be also necessary in problematic cases. Insulinoma-associated 1 (INSM1) has recently been reported as a highly sensitive and specific marker that displays positivity in ~90%-100% of poorly differentiated pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors. We compared diagnostic performance of INSM1 and previously reported composite marker CD56 + p16 + thyroid transcription factor-1 (TTF1) in the diagnosis of SCLC in small biopsy specimens and cytoblocks. The composite marker CD56 + p16 + TTF1 correctly classified 100% of SCLC cases, and its sensitivity was significantly higher than the sensitivity of INSM1. Among 100 SCLC cases, CD56, TTF1, and p16 each individually classified more specimens correctly than INSM1 (CD56: 84%, TTF1: 89%, p16: 95%, INSM1: 81%); the difference was statistically significant only for p16. INSM1 showed the lowest classification agreement between paired biopsy and cytoblock specimens (κ = 0.182), whereas CD56 and p16 displayed perfect agreement (κ = 1) and TTF1 showed moderate agreement (κ = 0.4). Although INSM1 is reportedly the most specific marker of SCLC, its sensitivity is not superior to p16 or composite marker CD56 + TTF1 + p16. Based on this study, we propose the following algorithm, which, in the appropriate clinical and histological context, may be useful in establishing the correct diagnosis of SCLC: First, INSM1 detection is performed, and if the result is negative, CD56 is added, followed successively by p16 and TTF1 if all previously applied markers are negative. This approach should detect most, if not all, SCLC cases, while successively trading specificity for sensitivity.
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369
650    _2
$a algoritmy $7 D000465
650    _2
$a nádorové biomarkery $x metabolismus $7 D014408
650    _2
$a biopsie $7 D001706
650    _2
$a antigen CD56 $x metabolismus $7 D019002
650    _2
$a inhibitor p16 cyklin-dependentní kinasy $x metabolismus $7 D019941
650    _2
$a DNA vazebné proteiny $x metabolismus $7 D004268
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a imunohistochemie $7 D007150
650    _2
$a nádory plic $x diagnóza $x metabolismus $x patologie $7 D008175
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a represorové proteiny $x metabolismus $7 D012097
650    _2
$a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
650    _2
$a malobuněčný karcinom plic $x diagnóza $x metabolismus $x patologie $7 D055752
650    _2
$a transkripční faktory $x metabolismus $7 D014157
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Mezencev, Roman $u School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, North Ave, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA.
700    1_
$a Šašková, Bohuslava $u Šikl's Department of Pathology, Charles University in Prague, The Faculty of Medicine and Faculty Hospital in Pilsen, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic; Bioptická laboratoř s.r.o., 326 00 Pilsen, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Ondič, Ondrej $u Šikl's Department of Pathology, Charles University in Prague, The Faculty of Medicine and Faculty Hospital in Pilsen, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic; Bioptická laboratoř s.r.o., 326 00 Pilsen, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Mukenšnábl, Petr $u Šikl's Department of Pathology, Charles University in Prague, The Faculty of Medicine and Faculty Hospital in Pilsen, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Michal, Michal $u Šikl's Department of Pathology, Charles University in Prague, The Faculty of Medicine and Faculty Hospital in Pilsen, 304 60 Pilsen, Czech Republic; Bioptická laboratoř s.r.o., 326 00 Pilsen, Czech Republic.
773    0_
$w MED00002080 $t Human pathology $x 1532-8392 $g Roč. 85, č. - (2019), s. 58-64
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30385371 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20200109 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20200113082149 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1483429 $s 1083833
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2019 $b 85 $c - $d 58-64 $e 20181030 $i 1532-8392 $m Human pathology $n Hum Pathol $x MED00002080
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20200109

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace