A reappraisal of three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA), four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR), and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels in the diagnostic distinction between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

BACKGROUND: The choice of appropriate therapeutic plans for primary endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) depend on the tumor's site of origin. The purpose of this study was to compare the performances of the commonly used three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA), four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR) and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. METHODS: A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. Utilizing the avidin-biotin (ABC) technique, tissue array sections were immunostained with five commercially available antibodies (ER, Vim, CEA, PR and p16INK4a) to evaluate the performances of their respective three-, four- and five-marker panels in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. RESULTS: ER, PR and Vim were more likely to be expressed in EMA, while CEA and p16INK4a were frequently expressed in ECA. The three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel exhibits the most favorable performance in the distinction between these two gynecologic malignancies (ECA vs. EMA). CONCLUSION: According to our data, when histomorphological and clinical doubt exists as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is sufficient, appropriate and useful in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA, instead of the four-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR) and five-marker (ER/Vim/CEA/PR/p16INK4a) panels. Ancillary PR and p16INK4a add no supplementary value to the performance of the conventional three-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel.

Five commonly used markers (p53, TTF1, CK7, CK20, and CK34betaE12) are of no use in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray extension study.

BACKGROUND: The choice of appropriate therapeutic plans for primary endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) depends on the tumor's site of origin. Some panels of antibodies help to distinguish primary ECA from EMA. However, unexpected expressions of those markers often exist, which causes this diagnostic dilemma to be still unresolved. In this study, we investigate five commonly used monoclonal antibodies (p53, TTF1, CK7, CK20, and CK34betaE12) to evaluate their potential use in distinguishing between these two gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. Utilizing the avidin-biotin (ABC) technique, tissue array sections were immunostained with the five aforementioned commercially available antibodies. RESULTS: Immunohistochemical (IHC) expressions of p53, TTF1, CK7, CK20, and CK34betaE12 were all nonsignificant (P>0.05) in frequency differences between the immunostaining results (positive vs. negative) in tumors from both the two primary adenocarcinomas (ECA vs. EMA). CONCLUSION: It is still uncertain which markers or panels would be the most appropriate for making diagnoses; hence, exploration of other useful markers, which make a definitive distinction between ECA and EMA merits further studies. This study, however, uncovered that the five commonly used monoclonal antibodies (p53, TTF1, CK7, CK20, and CK34betaE12) are of no beneficial value in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.

Comparing the scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemistry based on independent nucleic stains and independent cytoplasmic stains in distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

BACKGROUND: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that affect the uterus; however, their biological behaviors are quite different. This distinction has clinical significance because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. The purpose of this study is to evaluate two different scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemical (IHC) stain in distinguishing between primary ECAs and EMAs. METHODS: A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue from hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 21 EMAs. Tissue array sections were stained with a commercially available antibody, p16INK4a. The avidin-biotin complex method was used to visualize antigens. The staining intensity and extent of the IHC reactions were evaluated using a semi-quantitative scoring system. Two scoring methods were defined on the following bases: (1) independent cytoplasmic staining alone, irrespective of nucleic stain (Method C) and (2) independent nucleic staining alone, irrespective of cytoplasmic staining. (Method N). RESULTS: Of the two scoring mechanisms for p16INK4a expression, Method N showed a significant difference (P=0.015), but Method C showed no significant (P=0.432) frequency differences in distinguishing between ECAs and EMAs. However, Method N had a higher overall accuracy rate (71.4%) in accurately diagnosing ECAs from EMAs in the total number of p16INK4a IHC cases. CONCLUSION: According to the data of p16(INK4a) expression in this TMA study, Method N is favorable and efficient in distinguishing between ECAs and EMAs, while Method C is not.

Adding the p16(INK4a) marker to the traditional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel engenders no supplemental benefit in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that affect the uterus; however, their biologic behaviors are quite different. This distinction has clinical significance, because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. In this study, we not only compare the individual expression status of 4 immunomarkers [estrogen receptor (ER), vimentin (Vim), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), and p16], but also evaluate whether p16 adds value to the ER/Vim/CEA panel characteristics and performance in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 38 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 24 EMAs. Tissue microarray sections were immunostained with 4 antibodies, by the avidin-biotin complex method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemical reactions were evaluated using the semiquantitative scoring system. The 3 markers (ER, Vim, CEA) and their respective panel expressions showed statistically significant (P<0.05) frequency differences in ECA and EMA tumors. The p16 marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (P<0.05) between ECA and EMA, but did not demonstrate any supplementary benefit to the traditional 3-marker panel. In conclusion, when histomorphologic and clinical doubt exist as to the primary site of origin, we suggest that the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is appropriate. Ancillary p16-marker testing does not add value to the 3-marker panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.

Progesterone receptor does not improve the performance and test effectiveness of the conventional 3-marker panel, consisting of estrogen receptor, vimentin and carcinoembryonic antigen in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray extension study.

OBJECTIVE: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) are uterine malignancies that have differing biological behaviors. The choice of an appropriate therapeutic plan rests on the tumor's site of origin. In this study, we propose to evaluate whether PR adds value to the performance and test effectiveness of the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. METHODS: A tissue microarray was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 38 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 24 EMA. Tissue microarray (TMA) sections were immunostained with 4 antibodies, using the avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and extent of the immunohistochemical (IHC) reactions were appraised using a semi-quantitative scoring system. RESULTS: The three markers (ER, Vim and CEA) and their respective panel expressions showed statistically significant (p < 0.05) frequency differences between ECA and EMA tumors. Although the additional ancillary PR-marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (p < 0.05) between ECA and EMA tumors, it did not demonstrate any supplementary benefit to the 3-marker panel. CONCLUSION: According to our data, when histomorphological and clinical doubt exists as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel is easier, sufficient and appropriate to use in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. Although the 4-marker panel containing PR also reveals statistically significant results, the PR-marker offers no supplemental benefit to the pre-existing 3-marker (ER/Vim/CEA) panel in the diagnostic distinction between ECA and EMA.

Scoring of p16(INK4a) immunohistochemistry based on independent nuclear staining alone can sufficiently distinguish between endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

Endocervical adenocarcinomas and endometrial adenocarcinomas are malignancies that affect uterus; however, their biological behaviors are quite different. This distinction has clinical significance, because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. The purpose of this study is to evaluate four different scoring methods of p16(INK4a) immunohistochemical staining in distinguishing between primary endocervical adenocarcinomas and endometrial adenocarcinomas from limited sizes of tissue specimens. A tissue microarray was constructed using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue from hysterectomy specimens, including 14 endocervical adenocarcinomas and 21 endometrial adenocarcinomas. Tissue array sections were immunostained with a commercially available antibody of p16(INK4a). Avidin-biotin complex method was used for antigens visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemistry was evaluated using the semiquantitative scoring system. Of the four scoring methods for p16(INK4a) expression, Method Nucleus, Method Dominant Cytoplasm or Nucleus, and Method Mean of Cytoplasm plus Nucleus showed significant (P values <0.05), but Method Cytoplasm did not show significant (P=0.432), frequency distinction between endocervical adenocarcinomas and endometrial adenocarcinomas. In addition, Method Mean of Cytoplasm plus Nucleus had the highest overall accuracy rate (80%) for diagnostic distinction among these four score-counting methods. According to the data in this tissue microarray study, Method Nucleus is the most convenient and efficient method to distinguish between endocervical adenocarcinomas and endometrial adenocarcinomas. Although Method Dominant Cytoplasm or Nucleus as well as Method Mean of Cytoplasm plus Nucleus also revealed statistically significant results, they are relatively more inconvenient due to complicated score calculating means on the basis of mixed cytoplasmic and nuclear p16(INK4a) expressions. Method Cytoplasm is of no use in the diagnostic distinction between endocervical adenocarcinomas and endometrial adenocarcinomas.

Scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemistry based on either independent nucleic stain or mixed cytoplasmic with nucleic expression can significantly signal to distinguish between endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

BACKGROUND: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECAs) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMAs) are malignancies that affect uterus; however, their biological behaviors are quite different. This distinction has clinical significance, because the appropriate therapy may depend on the site of tumor origin. The purpose of this study is to evaluate 3 different scoring mechanisms of p16INK4a immunohistochemical (IHC) staining in distinguishing between primary ECAs and EMAs. METHODS: A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue from hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECAs and 24 EMAs. Tissue array sections were immunostained with a commercially available antibody of p16INK4a. Avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method was used for antigens visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the IHC reactions was evaluated using the semi-quantitative scoring system. The 3 scoring methods were defined on the bases of the following: (1) independent cytoplasmic staining alone (Method C), (2) independent nucleic staining alone (Method N), and (3) mean of the sum of cytoplasmic score plus nucleic score (Method Mean of C plus N). RESULTS: Of the 3 scoring mechanisms for p16INK4a expression, Method N and Method Mean of C plus N showed significant (p-values < 0.05), but Method C showed non-significant (p = 0.245) frequency differences between ECAs and EMAs. In addition, Method Mean of C plus N had the highest overall accuracy rate (81.6%) for diagnostic distinction among these 3 scoring methods. CONCLUSION: According to the data characteristics and test effectiveness in this study, Method N and Method Mean of C plus N can significantly signal to distinguish between ECAs and EMAs; while Method C cannot do. Method Mean of C plus N is the most promising and favorable means among the three scoring mechanisms.

Ancillary p16(INK4a) adds no meaningful value to the performance of ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel in distinguishing between primary endocervical and endometrial adenocarcinomas in a tissue microarray study.

PURPOSE: Endocervical adenocarcinomas (ECA) and endometrial adenocarcinomas (EMA) are uterine malignancies that have differing biological behavior. The choice of appropriate therapeutic plan depends indeed on the tumor's site of origin. In this study, we not only compare the individual expression status of five immunomarkers (ER, PR, Vim, CEA, and p16(INK4a)), but also evaluate whether p16(INK4a) adds value to the ER/PR/Vim/CEA panel characteristics in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA. METHODS: A tissue microarray (TMA) was constructed using paraffin-embedded, formalin-fixed tissues from 35 hysterectomy specimens, including 14 ECA and 21 EMA. TMA sections were immunostained with five anti-bodies, by avidin-biotin complex (ABC) method for antigen visualization. The staining intensity and area extent of the immunohistochemical (IHC) reactions were appraised by using the semi-quantitative scoring system. RESULTS: The four respective markers (ER, PR, Vim, CEA) and their combined panel expressions showed significant (p < 0.05) frequency differences between ECA and EMA tumors. The p16(INK4a) marker also revealed a significant frequency difference (p < 0.05) between the two sites of origin, but did not demonstrate to have any supplementary value to the 4-marker panel. CONCLUSION: According to our data, when there is histomorphological and clinical doubt as to the primary site of origin, we recommend that the conventional 4-marker (ER/PR/Vim/CEA) panel is appropriate. Ancillary p16(INK4a)-marker testing does not add value to the 4-marker panel in distinguishing between primary ECA and EMA.

Sexual dysfunction secondary to gemfibrozil.

Hypertriglyceridemia is a well-recognized complication of protease inhibitor therapy, specifically ritonavir. Fibrate derivatives are recommended as first-line therapy for isolated triglyceride elevations, and gemfibrozil has been successful for managing protease inhibitor-induced lipid changes. A 35-year-old man experienced sexual dysfunction 3 weeks after starting gemfibrozil. The temporal relationship and improvement in sexual function after the drug was discontinued suggest that gemfibrozil may have been responsible for his sexual dysfunction.